COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
	That Mr. Bob Ainsworth and Mr. John Heppell be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Nicholas Brown and Liz Blackman be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Nicholas Brown.]

Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Single Farm Payments

Philip Dunne: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to resolve the payment of outstanding single farm payments to cross-border farmers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, have held regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales, including farming. I understand that of the 518 cross-border claims under the 2006 scheme, all but 25 have been processed for full or part payment.

Philip Dunne: May I be the first person on the Conservative Benches to congratulate the Minister on his elevation? In view of the Secretary of State's multi-tasking, I expect that he will have a heavier load than usual. I am grateful for his answer. Will he please ensure full co-operation between the National Assembly for Wales agriculture department and the Rural Payments Agency for farmers whose farms straddle both sides of the border? My constituent Mrs. Christine Jones of Llanfairwaterdine did not receive her 2005 payment in full until the end of last month.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words of introduction to the Dispatch Box and I am sure that I will greatly enjoy the role. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did outstandingly well when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have no doubt that he will be equally good in command of the Department for Work and Pensions. On the substance of the question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be close co-ordination between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Rural Payments Agency and the Welsh Assembly Government. Just to bring the House up to date and to be clear, in Wales, for 2006, 315 of the 323 farmers on the Welsh side of the border have been full or part paid, and, in England, 178 out of 195 have been full or part paid. We will make sure that we work closely together to ensure that everybody receives their payment.

Paul Flynn: May I say, llongyfarchiadau i'r gweinidog newydd? The real scandal of the single payment is that it costs the average family in Wales £450 a year in farm tax. Is not the problem that the single payment is almost a payment for life for farmers, even if they stop farming altogether? One farmer in Wales recently left farming and sold his single payment allocation to a speculator. Should we not stop that scandal and make sure that the single payments, which are rip-offs for the taxpayer, are phased out?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of llongyfarchiadau, which for the purpose of the translators is "congratulations" in Welsh. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you. I can confirm that the complete amount paid for the single farm payments is, for 2006 alone, more than £219 million. We are on track and on target with that. Although I cannot wholly disagree with his comments, I assure him that we will work to make sure that the farming community and the wider rural economy in Wales is protected for the future and safeguarded.

Neighbourhood Policing

Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on neighbourhood policing in Wales.

Nia Griffith: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on neighbourhood policing levels in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions. The Government are committed to effective neighbourhood policing.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. There are 22 community safety partnerships in place in Wales. Does he agree that those partnerships are having a real impact on our local communities by tackling crime and antisocial behaviour? Can he give an assurance that the funding for those partnerships will be safeguarded?

Peter Hain: I agree that the multi-agency approach has a big impact on local crime. Record amounts of funding are going in, as they have done throughout our period of government—unlike the Conservative record in government. The figures speak for themselves. Recorded crime in Wales is down 3 per cent., total violent crime is down 1 per cent., burglary is down 10 per cent., theft and the handling of stolen goods is down 5 per cent., and theft of and from vehicles is down 3 per cent. The only thing that is up is detection rates.

Nia Griffith: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the neighbourhood policing teams in my constituency and across Wales? They are not only making our streets safer through high-profile policing, but are working together with agencies such as the county council and Communities First to tackle the causes of crime and are developing things such as the multiball centres in Llwynhendy and the Morfa. Will he make sure that we have adequate talks with Home Office Ministers to ensure funding for our neighbourhood policing teams across Dyfed-Powys?

Peter Hain: I will certainly do all that I can and I hope that my hon. Friend will support that. I am pleased to inform her that the Dyfed-Powys police force is on track to have a dedicated neighbourhood policing team embedded in every area by April 2008. I congratulate her on her work to support such initiatives.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as the funding settlement for the police in Wales is 3.6 per cent. this year, yet police inflation is 5.1 per cent., there is an obvious funding gap? As is typified by the situation in north Wales, that will lead to a recruitment embargo, or stop, for at least three years. Neighbourhood policing partnerships have been very successful, but will he please ensure that they can continue to be so and that the funding gap is addressed?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that unlike under the Conservatives, there will be total funding of more than £450 million this year, which is up 17.3 per cent. in real term terms since 1997. Owing to that funding, we have 677 police community support officers, including in north Wales, and 1,000 police officers, including more in north Wales. That is why crime is falling and people feel safer in their communities.

Roger Williams: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reappointment and look forward to working with him and his Minister on the new powers that have been devolved to the Assembly. Does he still support the amalgamation of the four Welsh police forces?

Peter Hain: Before I answer that question, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I also pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who is sitting behind him, who carried out his long stint in the job very well. May I also pay tribute to my former deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger)? He did an outstanding job and is one of the most popular Members in the House on a cross-party basis.
	The amalgamation of all four police forces in Wales is not on the Home Secretary's agenda, and I am quite happy with that.

Chris Ruane: Eighteen months ago, four of my constituentsMaurice Broadbent, Dave Horrocks, Wayne Wilkes and 14-year-old Tom Harlandwere killed in the worst cycling accident in UK history. My right hon. Friend visited the site of the accident and met parents and the North Wales police to discuss the inquiry. Coroner John Hughes concluded his inquiry last week and was highly critical of North Wales police and Conwy county borough council's gritting department. Will my right hon. Friend ask to meet Conwy council and North Wales police to discuss the results of John Hughes's coroner's inquiry?

Peter Hain: I will certainly be happy to explore the matter with my hon. Friend and to work jointly with him to address the situation. He is right that I visited the site of the accident with him. The accident was one of the most appalling and tragic that I have ever had the misfortune to experience afterwards. The Rhyl cycling club is a fine club involving youngsters and many others. It has high standards and traditions, and it is devastating that it has been affected in such a way.

David Jones: May I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), since the accident happened in my constituency?
	The Secretary of State will appreciate that additional demands are likely to be made of the police in the light of the security situation. On Monday, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a commitment to the House that she would work with police forces throughout the country to ensure that adequate funding was made available for dedicated security posts. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will make representations to the Home Secretary with a view to ensuring that any diversion of resources to security policing will not impinge adversely on the community policing budgets of Welsh police forces?

Peter Hain: There is no intention that that will happen; both functions are equally important. At this sensitive and critical time, especially, we must ensure that all necessary resources are diverted towards dealing with the security threat. However, of course, community and neighbourhood policing, which is especially strong in north Wales, must be protected at all costs.

Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the success of neighbourhood policing is likely to be the work of police community support officers? The key reason why their introduction has been a tremendous success is that they, unlike fully-trained police officers, are not continually pulled off for other duties. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Home Secretary to ensure that police community support officers and their work are not diluted by giving them other tasks, or taking them out of the local communities to which they have been allocated?

Peter Hain: I will certainly write to my right hon. Friend about that, and I pay tribute to the work that he did in the Home Office right at the beginning of our time in government in getting police community support officers on track. It was an innovative Labour policy that has proved hugely successful and popular across the country.

James Gray: Is the Secretary of State not a little bit concerned that evidence is already emerging that police officers who are part of the very worthwhile neighbourhood policing initiative are being diverted to other urgent, important police tasks? Is there not a risk that the enthusiasm shown at the launch of the neighbourhood policing initiative will dissipate quickly, as policemen are diverted elsewhere? Is that really sustainable?

Peter Hain: I do think that it is sustainable, because the officers' primary purpose is to assist in neighbourhoods, and to be a visible presence on the streets. They are meeting that purpose very effectively and are giving reassurance and support to local communities, as was the original objective. Obviously, if there is an emergency or a crisis, it is all hands to the pump, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

Defence Training Academy

John Smith: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the impact of the defence training academy on the south Wales economy; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues, including the defence training academy, which is the single biggest investment in the history of Wales. It is the result of a strong partnership between our Government in Westminster and our Assembly Government in Cardiff, and the result of the work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in promoting the merits of St. Athan.

John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that everything is being done to ensure that the south Wales economy gets the maximum benefit from that record-breaking investment? In particular, does he remain confident that the road transport infrastructure for the academy will be in place by the time of its opening in 2012 or 2013?

Peter Hain: It is important that the road access is in place, and I hope that it will be. I know that the Welsh Assembly Government and Transport Ministers are working hard on that, along with others. There will, of course, be a full transport impact assessment as part of the planning procedure relating to that important investment. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the project will be a huge boost to the local economy. It is estimated that it will bring 5,500 jobs, and 1,500 jobs during the construction period. The spending input will mean about 58 million extra for the local economy over the life of the project, which is a long period.

Stephen Crabb: Given that the right hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box at the beginning of March and criticised Plaid Cymru in the strongest terms for its hostility to defence-related investment in Wales, will he explain why his party in Cardiff bay is negotiating a grubby deal with Plaid Cymru, and will he tell the House what steps

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the defence training academy.

Adam Price: Does the Secretary of State agree that all-party support for the project was vital to securing it for Wales, and will he agree to work with the Department for the Economy and Transport Ministers in the Assembly, whether they belong to my party or his, so that we can get the maximum benefit to which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) referred?

Peter Hain: Of course we must all pull together to make sure that the project is a spectacular success for the south Wales economy, and not just for the constituency that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) so ably represents. Of course all parties must work together. Speaking of who might be the Minister with responsibility for the economy, at least we were not negotiating a grubby deal with the Tories.

Mr. Speaker: I call Cheryl Gillan.

Cheryl Gillan: I will wait for the next question.

Mr. Speaker: I have the hon. Lady's name down to ask a question now. Perhaps the Whips will keep me informed of what question the Front-Benchers want dealt with. I call Mark Pritchard.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I welcome this opportunity. In addition to the problems that the road infrastructure projects are causing for the future of the defence training academy, the Secretary of State will know that many of the defence training personnel from RAF Cosford, whom he hopes will relocate to RAF St. Athan, are unable to do so because of the differential in house prices. How does he think that that will affect the future of the project?

Peter Hain: Clearly, it is important that those who are transferring to St. Athan bring their skills and their opportunities. It is a great place to live and to work. The whole area is a wonderful place to live. The regeneration of south Wales following the decline of coal mining and heavy industry provides a marvellous location for people to work and to enjoy a quality of life that is among the highest anywhere in Britain.

Chris Bryant: Whatever one's private thoughts about Welsh nationalism may be, it is surely right that there has been universal support for the deal in St. Athan from all the political parties, including the independent Member of Parliament

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has that got to do with the matter before us? Nothing. It has nothing to do with it.

Welsh-speaking Workers

Hywel Williams: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial and Assembly colleagues on measures to safeguard the rights of Welsh-speaking workers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can confirm that my predecessor had regular discussions with colleagues in both the UK and the Welsh Assembly Governments on a wide range of issues, including the Welsh language, and I intend to continue such discussions.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful for that answer. Thomas Cook is the latest in a long line of companies to blunder into bad personnel decisions and public relations disasters on the language issue. As the company states in a letter to me, it never intended to ban the use of Welsh, but at the same time it says that the preferred language in some cases is English. The private sector is clearly confused about the matter. Does the Minister agree that the Welsh Language Act 1993 needs to be reviewed and reformed, if only for the benefit of the private sector?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the First Minister announced a legislative programme on 6 June and also announced that there would be an Order in Council on the Welsh language in the autumn. In the Wales Office we are closely monitoring the situation with Thomas Cook, and we know that the Welsh Assembly Government Minister responsible has requested a meeting with the company. I also know, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, that Thomas Cook has entered discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Welsh Language Board in relation to its Welsh language policy. All hon. Members will welcome that approach.

Cheryl Gillan: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for any misunderstanding with the Chair.
	May I congratulate the Secretary of State on keeping not one but two jobs in the Cabinet, and say diolch yn fawr to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) for his courtesy to me during his time in office. May I also say half a goodbye to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), and extend a warm welcome on behalf of the official Opposition to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to their new positions on the Front Bench for Wales.
	Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of the Welsh Language Act, which has done so much to protect and enhance the position of the Welsh language, and also acknowledge the main advocate and architect of that Act, my right hon. Friend Wyn Roberts, the noble Lord Roberts of Conwy? Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the dedication that Lord Roberts has shown to Wales throughout his long and distinguished public service career, and wish him a long and happy retirement?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I add my sentiments to those of the hon. Lady and welcome her back to her position. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would echo the sentiments as well. Yes, there has been a great deal of cross-party support for the Welsh language. It is worth remembering the successes, which include the fact that since 1993 Government Departments and public bodies have introduced 423 statutory and 53 voluntary Welsh language schemes. Over 37 per cent. of children between the ages of three and 15 speak Welsh, and there is an 80,000 increase in the number of people in Wales who can speak Welsh. That is to be applauded.

Prison Overcrowding

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Prison Service to discuss prison overcrowding in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my predecessor have held regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales, including prisons. The Government have announced further plans to ensure that there are enough prison places throughout England and Wales.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Is he aware that very large numbers of Welsh prisoners are starting their sentences as mild drug abusers but coming out of prison as hardened drug addicts? What assessment has he made of the impact of overcrowding on the capacity to deliver effective rehabilitation programmes?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are monitoring the situation closely. To clarify, this is an area of retained powers, not a devolved matter. Since 1997, the Government have increased prison capacity by nearly 20,000 places, and in 2007, capacity will increase further by 2,200 places. On top of that, a new capacity-building programme will deliver 8,000 new places by 2012, so we are well on the way to addressing the issue of overcrowding.

Ian Lucas: When I met offenders recently in Rossett churchyard, it was clear that they were carrying out purposeful work in tidying up the graveyard for the benefit of the local community. Does my hon. Friend, whom I welcome to his new position, agree that the key to reducing the prison population in Wales is to impose tough, non-custodial, alternative sentences, so that the local community can benefit from those who commit crime in the longer term?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense, and I pay tribute to those involved in the scheme that he mentioned. It is undoubtedly right that a progressive agenda must look at the issue of non-custodial sentences as well. We must also consider the issue of driving down crime. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in Wales recorded crime is down 3 per cent., violent crime is down 1 per cent., burglary is down 10 per cent., and theft from vehicles is down 3 per cent. Only detection rates are going up.

Jennifer Willott: Is the Minister aware that South Wales police are having to transport, house and feed at least seven prisoners a day because of prison overcrowding, a total of 570 since the start of the year, at a cost of over 250,000? What impact will that have on the ability of South Wales police to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady draws attention to the use of police cells for the custody of prisoners. It is not ideal, but Operation Safeguard is a well-established and tried-and-tested agreement between the National Offender Management Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers to hold prisoners in police cells instead of prison custody at times of high population pressures. It is a pragmatic approach, but the answer to overcrowding is, as I have already said, to tackle the root causes of criminal activity and to build new prison places, which we are doing.

Train Services

Si�n James: What discussions he has had with First Great Western trains on the December 2007 timetable consultation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has been tenacious in pressing the concerns of First Great Western's customersespecially those living west of Cardiff. My predecessor met First Great Western on 20 June, and I will continue to follow developments closely.

Si�n James: When my hon. Friend meets First Great Western, will he ensure that the consultation being undertaken is a real one, not a paper exercise? For too long in south-west Wales, we have fed information to First Great Western, but nothing happens. We are a little tired of that and we want consultation to take into consideration our needs and aspirations.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend continues to be a powerful advocate on behalf of rail passengers in Wales, and I can assure her that we will press hard for this to be a meaningful consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to First Great Western, seeking assurances on these issues, and our talks with First Great Western will continue. We intend to ensure that the consultation is meaningful.

Robert Key: The fourth prize in a recent charity auction in my constituency was a pair of First Great Western first class return tickets to London. I do not think that I dare travel First Great Western, but if the Minister would like them, I will gladly give them to him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I do travel regularly on First Great Westernevery weekand on Arriva trains as well. It is unacceptable that First Great Western's performance in the third quarter of 2006-07 was the lowest of all the long-distance operators. In a recent passenger focus survey, 72 per cent. of First Great Western passengers expressed their dissatisfaction. However, First Great Western has given commitments, and we will continue to press it for massive investment in the routes that it serves through to south Wales and look for the results. Let me also pay tribute to the Welsh Assembly, which, among other things, is investing more than 50 million to enhance capacity in the Valley Lines network. We must not forget about the feeder network either.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Daniel Kawczynski: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.

Gordon Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, before listing my engagements I am sure that the whole country will welcome the news that Alan Johnston, a fearless journalist whose voice was silenced for too long, is now free. I want to thank all those who contributed to the diplomatic and other efforts to secure his freedom.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings today.

Daniel Kawczynski: I congratulate the Prime Minister on becoming the leader of our country. He said[Hon. Members: More!] He said that he would, unlike his predecessor, listen to the people of our country. With that in mind, can I inform him that the great men and women of Shrewsbury have spoken, and they have voted overwhelmingly against unitary authority status for Shropshire? Four out of the five district councils are against it, as am I, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne). Will the right hon. Gentleman listen to the people of Shrewsbury and please not impose this ghastly unitary authority status on us?

Gordon Brown: Of course we will listen. As I understand it, Shropshire county councila Tory councilproposed these measures. I also understand that the hon. Gentleman's local council at Shrewsbury is against the measures, and that it has taken judicial action to try to have a review of them. Of course, I cannot comment on that judicial action, but the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or I will be pleased to meet him after that action to discuss the next step forward.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Prime Minister press the international community to develop financial instruments for the protection of tropical forests to ensure that the 20 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions that are going up into the atmosphere from the destruction of those forests does not continue?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did as a Minister in this Government to deal with the issues of tropical forests. I welcome the fact that he is now going to take a major interest in trying to ensure that the tropical forest in the Congo basin is reforested, that jobs are protected, that livelihoods are ensured and that the 50 million investment that we are supervising for that forest actually takes place. Let me congratulate him on becoming a special envoy for the Government in this task.

David Cameron: First of all, I agree with the Prime Minister about Alan Johnston. It is fantastic news that he is on his way back to his family.
	Recent attempts to cause massive loss of life in London and in Glasgow remind us of the very real threat that we face in this country. There are a number of measures that we believe would make a difference. First, we support the use of telephone tap evidence in court so that we do not just catch these people but convict them and lock them up. Six weeks ago, the Government agreed to our proposal for a Privy Council review of this issue. Can the Prime Minister tell us how soon they will publish the names, when it will meet, and when it will report?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that, right across the House as right across the country, there can be unity in our determination to fight terrorism. I want to remind people of just how brave and courageous the explosives experts in London and those who tackled the terrorist activity at Glasgow airport were. I hope that we can continue on an all-party basis to agree measures that are necessary in this country to deal with the terrorist threat. On the specific question of intercept, I can tell him that we will go ahead with our investigation, carried out on Privy Council terms, and of course I shall consult him and the leader of the Liberal party on the names of the people who will conduct it.

David Cameron: I hope that we can make progress. It is a complicated issue but setting up a committee is not complicated and that should happen without delay.
	We need to act against groups which are seeking to radicalise young people. Almost two years ago, the Government said that they would ban the extremist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. We think it should be bannedwhy has it not happened?

Gordon Brown: Of course, with all those detailsI have had to tackle the matter at the Treasury when dealing with terrorist financeone has to have evidence. It is precisely to examine the evidence that we instruct several investigations.
	Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we will do. We will expand the watch list on potential terrorists, which is the means of co-operation across the world, from Europe to the Arab states. We list them in such a way that authorities in different countries can be warned. We will expand the background checks that are being done where highly skilled migrant workers come into the country. Where people sponsor them, we will ask them to give us their background checks. As a result of what has happened in the national health service and because of what we know has happened in the past few days, I have asked Lord West, the new terrorism Minister, to conduct an immediate review of the arrangements that we must make for recruitment to the NHS. Finally, we will want to sign new agreements with other countries around the world so that we act together to deal with the potential terrorist threat and we can deport people to countries where they should be rather than this country. Again, I hope that there can be all-party agreement on the measures that we are taking to ensure the security of British citizens and to work with other countries in the fight against terror.

David Cameron: A very interesting answer, but I asked a specific question. The Prime Minister said that we need evidence about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation says that Jews should be killed wherever they are found. What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation? It is poisoning the minds of young people. Two years ago, the Government said that it should be banned. I ask again: when will this be done?

Gordon Brown: We can ban it under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Of course [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition forgets that I have been in this job for five days.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Gordon Brown: I have agreed that we will look at the issue, but we need evidence, and it cannot be just one or two quotes. We must look in detail at the evidence and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we should approach those matters in a sustained and calm way; that we should not jump to conclusions but consider all the evidence. That is the basis on which the Government will proceed.

David Cameron: But there has been a lapse of two years since the Government said that they would ban the organisation. People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned.
	As well as preventing radicalisation and stopping future dangers, we need to protect ourselves against present dangers. Does the Prime Minister agree that the time has come for a national border police force?

Gordon Brown: I am prepared to look at that. I have, of coursewhen I was Chancellor of the Exchequerlooked at how the Customs and Excise authorities can work better with the police to secure border arrangements. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that everyone who looks at the issue, including Lord Stevens, who considered it for him, has concluded that the need for identity cards is complementary to a border police force.  [Interruption.] It is his party that continues to oppose identity cards. The new shadow terrorism Minister, Lady Neville-Jones, whom he appointed only a few days ago, also said that identity cards are complementary to the other measures that are necessary to protect our borders. I hope again, in the spirit of bipartisan co-operation, that he will reconsider his views on the need to introduce identity cards.

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to trade quotes on identity cards, perhaps he will try this one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
	Identity cards are unnecessary and will create more difficulties than they will solve...I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card.[ Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 70.]
	Identity cards did not stop the Madrid bombings. After the 7 July bombings, the then Home Secretary said that they would not have helped in the UK, that they would not come in for years and that they would cost billions of poundsmoney that should be spent on things such as border police.
	Let me come back on the border police. The Home Affairs Committee supported a border police, the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner supports it, and Lord Stevens, as the Prime Minister said, is conducting a review for us now on the need for a border police, which he fully supports. The Prime Minister has said that he is open to this suggestion. Will he tell us exactly what he will do and when he will make an announcement about a national border police force?

Gordon Brown: First, I may say to the right hon. Gentleman on comments made about identity cards in the past that we have got to take into account what is actually happening now. It is because the situation has changed that more and more people have come to the view taken by his security expert and Lord Stevens that we need identity cardsand I know that many on the Conservative Back Benches believe exactly the same as we do.
	As for the border police, I have said that I will look at this issue. We have already brought Customs and Excise and the other authorities together to work in closer co-operation. I have to look at that in the context of the available finance and of other measures that we are taking, including electronic borders, to step up security, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Government will ensure that the security of the British people is protected, and we will take all measures that are necessary for the safety of the British people. Again, I hope that there will be bipartisan co-operation on these issues, so that we can show the world that Britain is protected against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker: Jim Sheridan.

David Cameron: rose

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman.

David Cameron: Convicting terrorists by using phone taps, banning the extremists who radicalise young people in our country and, vitally, securing our bordersare they not three of the practical steps that are absolutely vital parts of the unity that the Prime Minister needs to build so that we can all ensure that the terrorists will never win?

Gordon Brown: We can co-operate on the issues ahead, but the right hon. Gentleman has to look at the policies that he has been putting forward and examine whether they are the right things for this time as well. I also have to make the point to him that the unfunded change is no change at all. If he is not prepared to support with financial resources the policing, the law and order and all the public services that are necessary, we will not be able to agree on the way forward.
	In the light of the events of the last few days, I hope that the country can come together and agree these measures. I have offered conversations with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of issues, including intercept, and on other issues we are prepared to co-operate not only with the Leader of the Opposition but with other parties. It is vital that the message be sent out to the rest of the world that we will stand strong, steadfast and united in the face of terror.

Jim Sheridan: The dust has hardly settled at Glasgow airport and already there are some siren voices in Scotland seeking to divide our investigative and inquiry teams. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that any terrorism in this country is a British problem which requires a British solution?

Gordon Brown: I agree. Let me add my thanks for the work done at Glasgow airport. Not only did a number of employees at the airport come to the rescue and take action against those who were later arrested, but as a result of the determination of the British people to send out a message that terrorism will not disrupt our way of life, the airport returned to normal within 24 hours. I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend's comments.

Menzies Campbell: Like everyone else, I am delighted at the release of Mr. Alan Johnston. I am sure that I am not the only one to be impressed by his remarkable dignity and composure while being interviewed this morning.
	The Prime Minister entered No. 10 Downing street with a promise of change. Will he now set a target for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq; will he order the reopening of the investigation into allegations of corruption in relation to arms sales; and will he renegotiate the one-sided extradition treaty with the United States?

Gordon Brown: As I said yesterday, my door is always open to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On these issues, let me tell him this: it would be wrong to set a timetable at this stage. What we have done is reduce the number of troops from 44,000 to 5,500, and move from combat to over-watch in three provinces of Iraq. What we await is a decision to move to over-watch in the fourth province of Basra, but we have obligations, which we have accepted, both to the United Nations and the Iraqi Government, and we are not going to break those obligations at this stage.
	As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two other questions, I have made it clear that decisions on prosecutions are not for the Prime Minister or the Government, and the extradition treaty with the United States is a matter for continuing discussion.

Menzies Campbell: When I look at the Prime Minister's door it appears to be more of a trap door than anything elseso there is not much evidence of change there. Will the Government now abandon their headlong rush towards a new generation of nuclear power stations? Will they undertake to tax pollution more than earnings? Finally, will they abolish the unfair and regressive council tax?

Gordon Brown: Surely the events of the past year should make it clear to everyone that we cannot rely on an energy policy that makes us wholly dependent on one or two countries or regions across the world. That is why we have made the decision to continue with nuclear power, and why the security of our energy supply is best safeguarded by building a new generation of nuclear power stations. On the council tax, let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he got very little support from the electorate for his policy of local income tax.

John Reid: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking on the stewardship of this country and commend the cool and steadfast way in which he and the new Home Secretary have handled the recent difficult circumstances? In relation to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, I confirm what the Prime Minister said: we have recently carried out two reviews of Hizb ut-Tahrir and we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to ban it. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to stay absolutely on the course that he set today, and to stick by the law and the evidence and not to be swayed by any arbitrary political advantage that he thinks might be gained. May I also tell him [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be very brief now.

John Reid: Nothing would be more politically disadvantageous than taking on a case without evidence and losing it. That would confirm all the accusations made against us by our opponents.

Gordon Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he did as Home Secretary, and particularly his work on setting up our new arrangements for dealing with terrorism. I agree that, however distasteful remarks made by organisations are, we must proceed on the basis of evidence and work within the law. The Government will make no panic reactions; we will work in a strong and steadfast manner and within the law.

Robert Wilson: Why is the post of Secretary of State for Defence now considered to be a part-time job?

Gordon Brown: The Secretary of State for Defence is doing a full-time job.  [Interruption.] Someone pointed out to me the hon. Gentleman's website this morning [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members should let the Prime Minister answer.

Gordon Brown: They do not want me to tell them that the hon. Gentleman's website says:
	Conservatives must be relentlessly positive.
	 [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wilson wants to hear the answer, and so do I.

Gordon Brown: The Defence Secretary is working with our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is working to draw up future defence estimates, and he is doing a magnificent job on behalf of this country.

Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend extend his praise to the year 5 boys at Middlethorpe primary school in Cleethorpes for their wonderful bully-buster initiative, and will he tell the boys at that school what his Government will be doing to ensure that local councils and organisations such as ChildLine are well funded to tackle bullying in our schools today?

Gordon Brown: Let me thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in her Cleethorpes constituency, and offer thanks for the work being done by the Beat Bullying campaign. I was fortunate to attend with Kelly Holmes the launch of the anti-bullying week, and I am very grateful to all the organisations that are trying to stamp out bullying not just within schools but outside schools, and to all the teachers and parents involved in this. It is a measure of the importance that we attach to every child having a decent childhood that we will extend the funds available to ChildLine. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is announcing today a 30 million budget for ChildLine over the next two years, which will enable it to improve its services both to young people affected by bullying, and to all children who need the service of ChildLine. They do need it, and it is a great service.

Richard Bacon: When EDS agreed to pay 71 million in compensation to Customs and Excise, 44 million was up front, with a further 26.5 million in staged payments. However, at the present rate of progress, it would take 106 years for the Exchequer to receive the money it is due. Does the Prime Minister think that a satisfactory rate of progress, and if not, what is he going to do to get the money owed to the taxpayer?

Gordon Brown: We are talking about a commercial arrangement between a firm and the Governmenta commercial arrangement that was then renegotiated. The Public Accounts Committee or any other organisation is welcome to look at it, but I am satisfied that we have done what is right in the public interest.

Christine Russell: The 5,000 families in housing need in the city of Chester have welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement that the provision of affordable housing will be a key priority for his Government. What message does he have for those Tory councillors in Chester who are trying to block the development of homes for local people on the site of an old Victorian psychiatric hospital that has been in the local

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister can manage an answer.

Gordon Brown: It is right that we now build more houses in this country. It is also right that we seek to make housing affordable for thousands of people who cannot at the moment afford housing because of house prices. That means that we will have to build more houses, and that local authorities, including Conservative local authorities, will have to look at how they can release land to be able to do so. That is why I am disappointed that the new Conservative shadow housing Minister has said,
	you cannot build your way out of a housing crisis.
	We need to build more, and I hope again that there will be all-party support.

Willie Rennie: May I express my sadness at the recent deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, including that of Private Kennedy, who was from my constituency? The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of my constituent, Steven Johnston, who spent 10 years in prison for murder before his conviction was quashed last year. Since then, Steven has received no specialist professional psychological support and very poor after-care in general. The guilty are treated better. Will the Prime Minister investigate the specialist support provided to these victims, to ensure that they are given every chance to live as normal a life as possible?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency neighbours mine. However, I have to say to him that the conviction is a matter for the Scottish courts; any compensation would have to come from the Scottish judicial system. As far as the services available to individuals who need either special care or special attention are concerned, I shall look at the points that he made.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to tackle terrorism, we need the Muslim community to provide strong leadership from within that community? Does he also agree that the experience of Northern Ireland bears out very strongly his belief that we need a bipartisan approach if we are to succeed in resolving these problems?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee with great experience as a former Minister in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right that all sections of the House should appeal to all faith communities in this country. I want to see a stronger inter-faith dialogue where people find the common ground that exists between the different religions and communities of our country. There are more than 200 inter-faith groups throughout our country and I would like us to be able to finance and help the development of inter-faith groups in every community. I agree that that would make a huge difference to community relations. I hope to be able to talk to other party leaders about how we can move this forward.

Gregory Campbell: The Prime Minister is a Scot, who has made it clear that he cherishes our shared Britishness. As an Ulsterman, I, too, value that Britishness. What plans does he have to ensure that people in each part of the United Kingdom can see the enduring benefit of building again a great nation that prevails over terror and adversity, whether domestic or international?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words about the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope that the work we started yesterday on a statement of rights and responsibilities in our country will yield fruit and I hope that all parties in the House will join in that work. As a result of that work and the hearings to be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, I hope that we will see how the United Kingdom can move closer together.

Rosie Cooper: My right hon. Friend has spoken often of his commitment to improving patients' access to NHS services. Does he have any further information on plans to develop services on the Ormskirk site of the Southport and Ormskirk hospital, with special regard to the urgent care centre and recognising the benefit of providing the right local services in local settings?

Gordon Brown: I appreciate the work that my hon. Friend does as a local MP in pushing for an improvement to health services in her area. There will be a statement in a few minutes from the Secretary of State for Health, who will be outlining the Government's plans to improve primary care services, personal care services in hospitals, investment in future health care and the treatment of diseases, and to make sure that the health service in this country is best for cure and best for care for all the people of the country.

James Gray: As a Scot and, like the Prime Minister, a son of the manse, I was concerned by his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson). The Secretary of State for Defence is fully employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more troops deployed than at any time since the second world war. Given that, how much time will he be able to devote to his duties in Scotland?

Gordon Brown: The Secretary of State for Scotland does not bring legislation before the House in normal circumstances. He is a Minister of State, who will be carrying out his day-to-day duties on a full-time basis. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Secretary of State for Defence is doing an excellent job and that the relationships between the Secretary of State and the Army, the Air Force and the Navy are very good. I hope that the whole House will support the Secretary of State for Defence in his work.

Paul Flynn: Seven of our brave soldiers died in the first five years that we were in Afghanistan, mostly as a result of accidents. In the past 14 months, 56 soldiers have lost their lives, and there has been little progress on reconstruction and no progress on drug eradication. Is it not time to look again at the purpose of the mission in Helmand province?

Gordon Brown: I have visited Afghanistan and have talked to our brave troops who are doing an excellent job on behalf not just of this country, but of a combined NATO exercise that involves more than 30 countries in putting troops and support on the ground in Afghanistan. The House must remember that Afghanistan is the front line against the Taliban, and if we allow Afghanistan to become a weaker country again, the Taliban will be back in the way that we saw before the events of 11 September. I have nothing but praise for our brave troops. I know that there have been casualties and I am sorry that a number of people have lost their lives only in the last week, but there is immense international support within and outside NATO for continuing this fight. The way it is going to be fought is on three levels: first, to improve security in Afghanistan; secondly, to ensure that there is political reconciliation; and thirdly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we have to give people a stake in the future of Afghanistan. That is why we are discussing, as a matter of urgency, economic measures that can help the Afghan people.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Prime Minister join me in extending our sympathies to all those who have been flooded across the country, but particularly in Yorkshire? I understand that several flood defence schemes that would have gone ahead were cut, because of the single farm payment disaster and the Environment Agency budget being cut. Those included defences that would have helped Sheffield and Doncaster. Is he also aware that his Government are, for the first time, introducing a financial assistance scheme to help business communities? I am sure that that will be most welcome, but will he ensure that north Yorkshire businesses qualify as well as south Yorkshire businesses?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the question of floods. The loss of life is to be regretted and we will do everything that we can to support those people who have been moved from their homes and are homeless. I have telephoned the leaders of the local councils in the areas and said that we will do what we can to give them support.
	I must correct the hon. Lady on the issue of the prevention of floods and coastal defences. The budget for that will rise over the next few years [ Interruption. ] Oh yes. The budget will rise from 600 million a year to 800 million a year over the course of the next few years, so that we may have in place proper flood defences in our country.

NHS Next Stage Review

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the NHS. Next year marks the 60th anniversary of the creation of the national health service. If the welfare state represented the crowning achievement of Attlee's post-war Labour Government, the NHS was the jewel in that crownone of the great civilising influences of the 20th century.
	After the carnage of the second world war and the poverty and deprivation that went before, the advent of the NHS heralded a new era of equity, with medical care available for allthe weak, the sick and the vulnerable, as well as the wealthy and privileged. Nye Bevan said that the NHS made society
	more wholesome, more serene and spiritually healthier.
	That is as true today as it was in 1948. However, great change has occurred in the intervening 59 years, presenting new challenges for that cherished institution.
	We are living longer, partly thanks to the NHS and partly owing to incredible scientific advances, with groundbreaking research emerging every day, bringing new cures but also extra costs. We are more discerning as consumers: we have gone from the old ration-book culture to a new iPod age, in which we increasingly expect choice and convenience. And we are more prosperous, with a range of goods and devicesat one level improving our quality of life, but also leading to an increase in lifestyle diseases, such as obesity and diabetes.
	Society cannot stand still in the face of scientific and social change, and neither can the NHS. We have trebled spending to 90 billion a year, so there are now 80,000 more nurses and 36,000 more doctors. That unprecedented investment has been matched by new ways of working, from practice-based commissioning to NHS Direct and foundation hospitals.
	On most objective measures, the NHS is performing better than ever, with more than 1 million extra operations taking place every year. Waiting lists are down, while satisfaction levels are up. Ninety two per cent of patients describe the treatment that they receive as good, very good or excellent. Only a few weeks ago, a global study by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the NHS first in a comparison with five other developed countries, including the US, Canada and Germany.
	Yet, subjectively and anecdotally, there has been confusion and frustration in the NHS. The public are rightly concerned to know that their taxes are being wisely spent to build a health service that will meet their needs. Doctors, clinicians and nurses complain that they are fed up with too many top-down instructions, and they are weary of restructuring. They want a stronger focus on outcomes and patients, and less emphasis on structures and processes. That lack of confidence matters, because of the impact that it has on the operational capacity of the service. If the morale and good will of the profession is dissipated, our capacity for bringing about improvement for patients diminishes.
	Restoring the NHS was one of the Government's top priorities and, following almost two decades of neglect, a huge amount of reform in a short period of time was unavoidable. That was, as it were, the emergency room approach and, in the early stages it brought about substantial achievements. However, we now need to forge a new partnership with the profession.
	Having addressed the funding shortfall, and put the necessary reforms in place, we will give the NHS the sustained period of organisational and financial stability that it requires. I can announce today that there will be no further centrally dictated, top-down restructuring to primary care trusts and strategic health authorities for the foreseeable future.
	But we need to do more to make sure that the NHS keeps up with the changing demands and expectations of patients. New drugs, new medical technologies and better clinical practices provide huge opportunities, while lifestyle diseases and an ageing population present major challenges. To set us on the path to the next stage of the transformation of the NHS, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have asked Professor Sir Ara Darzi, one of the world's leading surgeons, to carry out a wide-ranging review of the NHS. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that a properly resourced NHS is clinically led, patient-centred and locally accountable.
	The review, the first of its kind, will directly engage patients, NHS staff and the public on four critical challenges. First, we want to work with NHS staff to ensure that clinical decision making is at the heart of the future of the NHS and of the pattern of service delivery. Secondly, we want to improve patient care, including providing high-quality, joined-up services for those suffering long-term or life-threatening conditions, so that patients are treated with dignity in safe, clean environments.
	Thirdly, our aim is to ensure that more accessible and convenient care is integrated across primary and secondary providers, reflecting best value for money and offering services in the most appropriate settings for patients. Fourthly, we will establish a vision for the next decade of the health service that is based less on central direction and more on patient control, choice and local accountability, and which ensures that services are responsive to patients and local communities. The terms of reference for the review have been placed in the House of Commons Library, and I have written today to all NHS staff to explain the importance of this new approach.
	Professor Darzi will complete an initial assessment in three months' time to inform the comprehensive spending review. He will produce his full report in the new year, setting out a new vision for a 21st-century NHS, coinciding with the 60th anniversary celebrations.
	I know that the review will not succeed if it is controlled from above: the best of the NHS sits not at the top of the organisation but in the millions of complex and diverse relationships that exist across the country between dedicated, devoted professionals and their patients. The success of the review will depend on gaining access to those relationships and stimulating a range of lively, local, provocative debates. The scale of our discussions with staff, patients and the public will be unprecedented, harnessing Professor Darzi's wide experience of building engagement as part of his work in London and elsewhere.
	Patients must have the chance to shape the kind of NHS they want, to say how they wish to access services as they manage increasingly complex lives, juggling competing demands. They should have the chance to say how they feel about services delivered through pharmacies, the internet and other new technologies. We must respond by ensuring that they have more convenient services, open when they need them, making it easier to book timely appointments. Patients should also have the chance to say how we can make services more personal to them, particularly in long-term care.
	Although it is right that we look forward, we must also deal with the problems at hand. A major immediate concern for patients is the cleanliness of hospitals. Last year, NHS staff successfully brought about a reduction in MRSA bloodstream infections as well as stemming the increase in C. difficile reports. Today, I am providing funding for each director of nursing in every strategic health authority to work with front-line nurses to ensure that they get the support they need to provide clean, safe wards. I am also doubling the size of the infection improvement teams, so that all trusts struggling to meet the MRSA target can have access to doctors and nurses who are experts in infection control, to help them get back on track.
	Public services cannot be transformed by going against the grain of public service, or without support from the professionals who know the NHS best. As Secretary of State, I am determined to establish a new, closer, more robust social partnership between patients, practitioners and policy makers, based on trust, honesty and respect. That is why Professor Darzi is leading the review, supported by a team of leading clinicians across the country. He will engage directly with front-line staff, not just the great and the good of the health world, but those working in every primary care trust and hospital trust up and down the country.
	As part of the review, we must look at how we make decisions on the shape and location of hospital services. The way we do so must be transparent, open and accountable. People need to know that decisions are being made for the right reasons by clinicians, and are based on the best available medical evidence. While the review is under way I will, as a matter of course, ask the independent reconfiguration panelour expert clinical groupfor advice on any decisions made at local level that have been referred to me by overview and scrutiny committees. I will make sure that any changes made are made on the basis of clinical need and patient care.
	At the end of the review, we will consider the case for a new NHS constitution, with respect for the needs of patients and the judgment of professionals at its heart, ensuring that power is devolved to those who know the service best. That will ensure that the service is genuinely led by the needs of patients, providing value to the taxpayer as we move to the next stage of improvement. It will protect the enduring, cherished principles of universal health care, free at the point of need, which lay behind the establishment of the NHS, and ensure that this precious institution continues into the 21st century in ruder health than ever. I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. But is that it? The NHS an immediate priority for the Prime Minister? And what is the immediate priority? An 11-month review. If the Secretary of State really thinks we shall leave him alone for a year while he finds out what is going on in the NHS, he has another think coming.
	It is 4 July today: I thought that it would be NHS independence day, but it did not turn out to be. I was disappointed by what I heard, andnotwithstanding a letter from the Secretary of StateNHS staff, along with the public, will be disappointed.
	For a start, we need to know what on earth is going on. A fortnight ago, the NHS chief executive said in his report:
	in the autumn we will set out a clear, strategic direction for the NHS going forward.
	That report is now so much chip paper. The Secretary of State has started with the same self-congratulatory material as we got from his predecessor. He cited the Commonwealth Fund report. I hope that he has read it; yesterday, this incoming Secretary of State did not seem to have read much.
	The Commonwealth Fund report compares Britain with only one other European country. On page 9, it says that the UK is worst on hospital-acquired infections; contrary to the Secretary of State's self-congratulatory statement, levels of C. difficile have not been stemmed, but are continuing to rise. On page 15, the report places the UK worst on access to out-of-hours GP services and worst for waiting times. On page 21, it states that the UK has the highest mortality rates after adjusting for factors unrelated to health care [Interruption.]
	Perhaps the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) has read it, if the Secretary of State has not. He says that the UK comes out best overall. Does he know why? The report puts into the equation what it regards as an efficiency measure, which it calculates on the basis of how much is spent. It adjusts the whole table on the basis of the fact that we spend less in the United Kingdom than Germany, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Spending less is the main reason why the Secretary of State and his Ministers think that UK health care is best.
	The only thing that the Secretary of State seems genuinely to have understood is that morale in the NHS is at rock bottom. In a recent  Health Service Journal survey, NHS staff were asked whether morale was good or poor: 4 per cent. said that it was good, 0 per cent. said that it was excellent and 66 per cent. said that morale was poor or very poor. What on earth have we heard in the Secretary of State's statement that would change any of that? We know what has to happen. We have published a White Paper that sets out direction and leadership. If the Secretary of State would only look at that, he would find things that clearly need to be done.
	First, the core principles of the NHS need to be entrenched in statute. We are prepared to do that; apparently, the Secretary of State's predecessors were prepared to as well, although with the exception of the principle that public funds for health care should be devoted solely to NHS patients. We subscribe to that principle. Will the Secretary of State now say that he will do the same?
	Secondly, we need no more pointless organisational upheaval. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has been saying that for a year, and finally Ministers have accepted it, so we can put that one down. Thirdly, the Government need to set the resources and objectives, but not to interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the national health service. In a recent poll, 67 per cent. of NHS staff and 71 per cent. of the public agreed with that proposition. Where is that today? If there were such an acknowledgement by the Secretary of State, he would scrap targets immediately.
	Fourthly, we need to take decisions close to patients. I am astonished that the incoming Secretary of State said nothing today about the centrality of the family doctor service and primary care, having a primary care-led service and strengthening commissioning. Fifthly, we need independent regulation of health care providers; even his predecessor acknowledged that we needed independent regulation. We need not a review but legislation in the next parliamentary Session to achieve those things.
	I have mentioned five long-term reforms, of which the Secretary of State has acknowledged only one. The NHS desperately needs leadership and direction. Reform in the NHS is confused and incoherent, and on its own admission, the Department of Health has no vision of where the NHS is going. We set out a blueprint. Come on, Secretary of State, steal our clothes! We need to show the NHS that politicians can work together for the long term to give it the framework that it really needs. Only if there is that long-term framework can we deal with the real challenges of demography, technology, productivity and improving public health outcomes.
	The Secretary of State said that he was dealing with immediate issues, but he mentioned only one, with something that should have been done years ago. Will he abolish the top-down centralised targets that stop NHS professionals doing their jobs and distort clinical priorities? Will he make the allocation of NHS resources fair and independent? We have asked for that, the Health Committee has asked for it, and two weeks ago his predecessor said that she thought it was the right thing to do.
	Will the Secretary of State stop major service reconfigurations? He is apparently going to put a brake on them and use the independent reconfiguration panel. When he goes to his new colleague, Sir Ara Darzi, and mentions that he is going to do that, Sir Ara Darzi will be amused, because in Hartlepool he was used by Ministers to bring forward proposals on reconfiguration, which were promptly overturned by the independent reconfiguration panel. That is not much of a recommendation for the policy-making skills of Sir Ara Darzi.
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House how it can be right, in terms of clinical need and patient care, for accident and emergency departments in Surrey and Sussex that treat up to 300,000 people to be shut down, while in Bishop Auckland hospital in Durham, which serves the former Prime Minister's constituency, an accident and emergency department that treats 125,000 people is apparently absolutely fine?
	Will the Secretary of State create additional training posts and assure well-qualified UK-based junior doctors that they will have an opportunity for specialty training? How can an incoming Secretary of State for Health not recognise that the crisis in junior doctor training is an immediate issue to be tackled? If the Secretary of State is so keen on a review, will he today initiate the independent review that we have called for on NHS ITone that really listens to the people working in the NHS?
	Five long-term reforms are required. There are five urgent issues. What have we got? Two. Two out of 10: those are the Secretary of State's marks so far. We would give the NHS the priority that it really needs by taking the action required. Where is the immediate priority that the Prime Minister promised? Where is the autonomy and accountability that the NHS is calling out for? Where is the leadership and the direction that the NHS so badly needs? The NHS is there for us. Why will not the Government trust NHS staff to deliver?

Alan Johnson: I am tempted to askto echo the hon. Gentleman's predictable responseIs that it?. It is a shame, because he thinks about these things, and he sent me a letter about having a dialogue on resolving these issues. His response will not be shared by NHS staff. NHS staff right across the country will be pleased that we are initiating the biggest consultation exercise we have ever hada genuine dialogue about how we move to the next phase of the NHS. The hon. Gentleman said that we were asking Members on the Opposition Benches to sit silent for a yearbut as I said in my statement, we are asking Ara Darzi to report first in October. The second part of the report will be next year, but certainly not 12 months away.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he thought this was going to be NHS independence day. I take issue with him about the Conservative party's policy on independence for the NHS. It is a fundamental central plank

Andrew Lansley: You said you hadn't read the document.

Alan Johnson: That was yesterday. I have had time to read it overnight, and I am deeply unimpressed. There is some tinkering around with detail that I would be pleased to talk to the hon. Gentleman aboutparticularly in the context of GP practitioners, which is an important issuebut the central plank of Conservative party policy is that we ought to hand the NHS over to some kind of 1960s public corporation, and it should be run completely independently by that huge quango. That will not work. I cannot think of a worse recipe for addressing the problems that we have in the NHS, which are about the work force believing that their views have been completely ignored in the context of the issues that have led to change, and that they are being talked down to by Whitehall, rather than their having a role in deciding the issues, based on clinical need, and patient care being an absolute priority.
	The hon. Gentleman said that morale had reached rock bottom. I doubt whether it has reached as low a level as it reached during the 1980s, but I accept that morale is low. He cannot make up his mind whether he wants things to be top-down or locally decided. He quotes the example of A and E reconfiguration in Sussex. That is a local, clinically-driven decision happening in that area. It is absolutely right that we should allow those proposals to go on. Incidentally, nine out of 10 reconfiguration proposals are decided and agreed locally, and do not even get referred to me for decision by the overview and scrutiny committee.
	We are not saying that the statement solves all the problems in the NHS. Of course there are problems in relation to junior doctors and problems to be tackled in a whole range of areas, but I hope that when Members on the Opposition Benches have had time to reflect, they will agree about using a team of highly respected clinicians who work in the NHS day in and day out. Incidentally, Professor Sir Ara Darzi will continue with his practice for two days a week, even while he is a Minister. It is right that he is a Minister, because if we handed the review to someone outside the NHS, and then outside Government when the review was delivered, that would be far less powerful than having someone conducting the review and being in government to ensure that the review is implemented.
	The Conservative party has crossed the Rubicon. You have crossed the Rubicon in relation to getting rid of the patient passport. You have crossed the Rubicon in making the NHS a priority

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should be careful when he uses the term you, because some people might think that he is talking about me.

Alan Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I should say that the Rubicon has been crossed. Core principle No. 7 of the NHS core principles, which the hon. Gentleman's party has now signed up to, says:
	Public funds for healthcare will be devoted solely to NHS patients.
	We remain committed to that. It is a big change for the Conservative party to follow us across the Rubicon, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has left some Members behind on the other side. Sitting behind him is the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), from the Cornerstone group, who still has to cross those perilous waters. Now we can decide together how we will take the NHS on to its next stage.

Kevin Barron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am sure that the Health Committee, of which I am a member, will want to look in some detail at what has been placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend said that society cannot stand still. Does not most of what was said from the Opposition Front Bench disprove that theory? Most of the time the Conservatives do want to stand still and not to move on. If the review is to look at targeting, will he make sure that targets setwhether at local or national levelin order to get rid of health inequalities are not removed, but are improved, so that we can address health inequalities in a serious way and have a national health service that deals with that matter better than it has in the past?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend is right, particularly when he describes the conservatism of Members on the Opposition Benches, which is hardly surprising. We needed to be top-down and to set targets to transform the situation in the NHS, particularly in relation to waiting lists. My right hon. Friend has a long and proud record of standing tall for the NHS and of arguing for the necessary changes. The point that I made both yesterday and today is that the NHS needed to be, in effect, in intensive care. It is now on the road to recovery. We need a different approach, and we need that to be formulated into a new constitution for the NHS that can make it fit for the 21st century.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. As an aside, the new Government, under the new Prime Minister, have said that they want to strengthen Parliament. May I suggest that providing copies of statements a little earlier than traditionally happens would be a sensible reform? That would mean that there could be a much more informed debate, rather than Members trying to come up with an intelligent response in the 35 minutes before the statement is made. I would be grateful if that could be considered.
	The statement is surely something of an admission of failure, given that after 10 years of the Government's stewardship of the NHS, they are still searching a strategic direction. It comes after the Cabinet Office's review of the Department, which was pretty scathing about the leadership offered and the lack of strategic direction. Nevertheless, I give it a cautious welcome, provided that the Government are prepared to examine fundamentally the serious weaknesses in their stewardship of the NHS, primarily the far too great centralisation of the way in which the service is run. I welcome the fact that consideration will be given to a constitution, because that approach seems entirely sensible.
	I am worried that it appears that the process will be entirely led by clinicians and health professionals. Will it involve patient representatives, other groups with a direct interest and the public? I appreciate that the public will be consulted, but will only clinicians and health professionals make all the decisions and recommendations?
	There are some fundamental weaknesses regarding the four areas that the review will examine. I was amazed that no reference was made to health inequalities and fairness. I raised that point during yesterday's debate. Health inequalities have increased under the Government in recent years, not reduced, despite the Government target on cutting such inequalities. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that even though there was no reference to health inequalities in the statement or the terms of reference, the review will examine them as a central issue?
	The proposals are pretty thin on the question of productivity. More and more people tell me that despite the enormous record investment, which we supported, money could be used much more effectively to achieve outcomes for patients who need help. Will there be a central look at how to improve productivity in the NHS?
	There has been a series of contradictory reforms over the past 10 years. Structural changes have subsequently been reversed, so I welcome the fact that there will be no more such changes. However, will the review address something that the former Secretary of State recognised in a speech that she made just before she stood down: the local democratic deficit in the NHS? She said that there was a need to strengthen local accountability. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would look to devolve power genuinely. How seriously will the review address providing genuine democratic accountability locally in the NHS?
	The Secretary of State said that existing problems needed addressing, but he referred to only one: hospital-acquired infections. He said that he would commit additional resources to tackling that problem, but how much extra will he provide for the strategy? Will this not be, again, too much of a top-down approach, and will it sufficiently engage staff? The Department was supposed to be producing a guidance note on the use of antibiotics, which is critical to tackling hospital-acquired infections, but so far that has not appeared.
	Finally, a number of existing problems need to be addressed, especially regarding out-of-hours care and access to NHS dentistry. Will the review examine those problems, too?

Alan Johnson: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's positive comments. I will consider whether, as part of this great new world in which we are living, we can give out statements much earlier. This statement was not finalised until 11 o'clock, but he makes a fair point. I hope that hon. Members accept that there was nothing about the statement in this morning's newspapers or on the Today programme. We tried hard to ensure that the statement was heard by Parliament first.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether this is an admission of failure, but that is not the case at all. The Government have to be big enough to recognise the problems in the NHS, which have not been caused by a failure in investment, resolve, additional staffing, or reducing waiting lists. Staff feel bemused and dazed by the fact that many changes have taken place over a short time, so it is important that we tackle that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) to the London School of Economics the week before last. That bears reading because she was pointing in that direction. Indeed, she mentioned the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the democratic deficit.
	The hon. Gentleman raised many important issues, but let me pick out one: health inequalities. The matter is crucial to the Government, although it was virtually ignored before when there was no focus on health inequalities. Although elements of the Darzi review will relate to the issue, it is too important for us to wait for that review, so I assure him that we will crack on with that as an absolute priority.
	Let me make a point about the role of the patient. I said in my statement that the patient is crucial. The first part of the review will involve Professor Darzi's team of clinicians listening to patients as well as staff. Patients are as important as any other group because their buy-in and commitment to the NHS really matter to its health in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If this is not stating the obvious, may I just say to the House that the opening exchanges have been very extended? Protecting Back Benchers is the job of the Chair, but equally, I hope that Back Benchers will help the Chair to get as many people in as possible. I ask that questions be brief and that answers be concise.

Brian Iddon: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. Despite increased funding and better facilities, a recent report showed that the health of people in my constituency was still well below the average of those living in other constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend not lose sight of the fact that our party has a commitment to moving the outriders with well below funding up to the average for the rest of the country?

Alan Johnson: I recognise the problem that my hon. Friend raises, which also affects the city that I represent. I assure him that that is one of the major priorities that we must tackle, but it can be addressed only with a bottom-up, rather than top-down, approach. That is the reason why we must ensure that local health authorities are able to tackle the problems in their areas. The problems in Kingston upon Hull will be different from those in Kingston upon Thames, while those in Bolton will be different from those in Bradford. That is an essential reason why we must have a bottom-up process.

Malcolm Moss: In the light of fact that the Secretary of State said in his statement that he wanted more patient control, choice and local accountability, what encouragement can he give to patients who are fighting to retain services at their local community hospitals, such as Doddington hospital in my constituency? Are those words about patient choice as empty as his predecessor's?

Alan Johnson: The important point about any reconfiguration involving community hospitals is that there should be local dialogue with the patient voice included in the locally driven process. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we put 750 million of capital into community hospitals. Some closures have been agreed by local health service professionals, but every time that that has happened, there has been an insistence that a new service be provided. Sometimes that service is much closer to patients' homes and is a community resource. The health service that we inherited 10 years ago, let alone that of 60 years ago, cannot ossify and be set in aspic. It is important that such changes happen, but the patient voice is absolutely crucial when there is any change.

Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend said that he would ask the independent reconfiguration panel to consider any decisions about hospital changes that are referred to him while the review is under way. Will he look into some of the reviews that are now under way? The fit for the future review has major implications for hospitals in north-east London, but I do not believe that it has been carried out in the transparent and accountable way that he suggests is needed, or that front-line staff have had serious involvement with patients. It seems highly unlikely that any recommendations arising from the review will fit the criteria that he says he wants to apply.

Alan Johnson: The important thing is that if there has not been transparency in the procedures locally, that is a reason for the overview and scrutiny committee to refer the decision to the Secretary of State, and it is one of the things that the independent reconfiguration panel will consider; specifically, it will look at whether there has been a proper consultation, and what that means for patient care, so I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend. I want clinicians, not politicians or bureaucrats, to make decisions, on the basis of what is best for patient care.

Julie Kirkbride: The Worcestershire Hospitals Acute NHS Trust will shortly come forward with proposals, which we expect will include the axing of maternity and paediatric services at the Alexandra hospital, which serves my constituents and those of the Home Secretary. Bearing in mind that the cuts are very unpopular locally and could lead to future questions about the hospital's accident and emergency unit, and bearing in mind that the cuts are motivated by the fact that the Alexandra is an NHS hospital, and the Worcestershire Royal hospital is a private finance initiative hospital that cannot be touched, may I take it from the Secretary of State's statement that if such changes are proposed in the near future, they will be put on hold while the review is undertaken?

Alan Johnson: No, sadly not. I always like to say something encouraging to the hon. Lady, but I cannot say that we will put the measures on hold. Indeed, it would be betraying the patient if we put all change on hold, because many of the changes taking place across the country are necessary. There must be a process of local consideration, and I am not going to stop that consideration taking place. If the case is referred to me by the overview and scrutiny committee, I promise the hon. Lady that I will refer it on to the clinicians on the independent reconfiguration panel.

Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to stress the importance of making the NHS and its doctors more accountable to the patients whom they serve. He will be aware that performance, in terms of both clinical outcomes and productivity, varies enormously from one doctor to another. Will he ask Professor Darzi to talk seriously to the royal colleges about how to address those inconsistencies of performance, and how to publish information in a way that the public will understand, so that the public have a say on the quality of care that they receive from the doctors whom they visit in the NHS?

Alan Johnson: As Professor Darzi is a member of almost all of the organisations that my hon. Friend mentions, I am sure that he will talk to them about the issue. Indeed, the issue of the disparity between services in different parts of the country is a major part of the review.

Nadine Dorries: The Secretary of State said that he would double the size of infection improvement teams, so that all trusts could have access to an infection control nurse or doctor. According to his predecessor, that was already happening. If the Secretary of State wants to know how to keep wards clean and how to stem MRSA increases, he should look no further than the Royal Marsden hospital, which was mentioned by his predecessor when she was at the Dispatch Box. At the Royal Marsden, no nurse is allowed to travel home in uniform, and all uniforms are laundered on site. Stopping MRSA and keeping wards clean is not brain surgery; I suggest that there be no review, and that he look at the Royal Marsden instead.

Alan Johnson: Even I would not get brain surgery mixed up with the measures that the hon. Lady mentions. I am pleased by her remarks about my predecessor, who did indeed say the things that the hon. Lady said she did, and who put in place the improvement teams. We are now doubling the number of those teams. I am happy to praise the Royal Marsden, and indeed Kingston hospital, which I visited on Saturday, which has had tremendous success in tackling MRSA. We need to ensure that that success is replicated elsewhere.

Joan Humble: I welcome today's statement, which will build on the improvements that I have seen to the local health community in Blackpool. My right hon. Friend will recall last year's White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, which mentioned the importance of social care services working with health services to deliver the Government's public health agenda. Will he take this opportunity to reconfirm the central role played by such services, so that patients can be considered as a whole and get the services that they need?

Alan Johnson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. Social care will not be a specific part of the Darzi review, as Darzi is looking at the national health service, but he will talk to social care providers to get a feel for their concerns. I will discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is responsible for social care, because I understand the issues relating to social care, the need to ensure that we keep our partnership with local authorities, and the need to improve the quality of social care.

John Bercow: Given that the lifetime cost of untreated communication disorders is estimated by the educational charity I CAN to be no less than 26 billion, how, in practical terms, does the Secretary of State intend to work with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that all children with such conditions get the help that they need, and do not suffer the irretrievable damage, for themselves and the country, that will otherwise result?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has consistently and eloquently raised the issue. He raised it with me when I was in the Department for Education and Skills and, if it is not revealing any secrets to say so, he sent me a note saying that the issue is equally important to the Department of Health. I invite him to come and speak to me so that we can have a discussion on the subject, and on how best we can integrate the work of the two Departments on speech and language therapy, because I recognise the importance of the issue.

Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the need to value NHS staff, but the NHS contains a large number of staff who are not doctors or nurses. I seek an assurance from him that our valuable support staff will be involved in the process. Will he seriously consider implementing the recommendations of the Fryer report on widening participation in learning, so that support staff get the training that they need and are valued for the contribution that they make to the NHS?

Alan Johnson: Yes. My speech did not leave out ancillary staff such as hospital portersI made the point that everyone who works in the NHS will be involved in the exercise. The group that my hon. Friend mentions is particularly important, as is the training element to which she referred. That is why the social partnership forum action plan, which was launched in April with the support of all the unions, the education sector, the Department of Health and the strategic health authorities, has been well received, but we need to build on it. I understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises.

Richard Taylor: I welcome the promise of stability and of consistent use of the independent reconfiguration panel for all contested reconfigurations. In view of the transition from patient forums to local involvement networksLINkshow will the Darzi review select the patients and members of the public to whom it will talk?

Alan Johnson: That level of detail is being worked out by Professor Darzi and his team across the country. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point is raised, so that we do not fall between two stools. It is important that we hear the patient's voice, and that it is accurately recorded. I am sure that on future occasions the hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to question me on how that is going.

John Grogan: Has my right hon. Friend any news of the proposed second wave of independent sector treatment centres, six of which have been cancelled, according to this morning's edition of the  Financial Times?

Alan Johnson: Well, hon. Members should not believe everything that they read in the  Financial Times. All that I can say to my hon. Friend is that every single ISTC proposal has to be cleared, not just by my Department but by Her Majesty's Treasury, on the basis of whether it is cost-effective, and whether it provides capacity that does not exist. The whole point is to get more MRI scanners and more cardiothoracic centres, and to bear down on the issues so that we attain that precious objective of patients waiting only 18 weeks from referral to treatment. We cannot put that on hold, and that is why the  Financial Times story is inaccurate, but we can ensure that at every stage we get value for money and add to capacity. That is the whole point of using the independent sector.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following on from that question, may I ask the Secretary of State what the Government's general view on the second wave of independent sector treatment centre contracts is? In particular, will he say when he is likely to sign a contract for Cirencester hospital, which I gather is on his desk or his Minister's desk? I am sure he would agree that prolonged uncertainty does nothing for the morale of the staff and the clinicians in that hospital.

Alan Johnson: I have not had a chance to look at that, but now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I will look specifically at his scheme.

Andy Reed: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the fact that he is in listening mode. I will bring him many of the local issues that I wish to discuss, such as GP referrals and GP out of hours services at walk-in centres. It is important that the review is not just hospital led. Does my right hon. Friend agree that public health, especially challenging lifestyles, will be the most important thing that we do? Obesity is reckoned to cost the country 8 billion a year. Will he work across Departments, as he has done in his other roles, to ensure physical activity, sport and so on play a crucial role in developing and delivering many of the lifestyle changes that are needed to reduce health inequalities?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. I can give him the assurance that public health will be a central part of what we are examining. We are some way off our public service agreement target on obesity. As I mentioned in my statement, these are the new problems that we are dealing with. Lifestyle changes have brought about a whole set of new problems that did not exist back in 1948. Malnutrition, rather than obesity, was the problem then. We need to tackle that and face up to the challenges presented by demographic and lifestyle changes. That is one of the basic reasons for the review.

Michael Jack: This morning the National Audit Office published a strong and critical report on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia in the United Kingdom, comparing us unfavourably with the rest of Europe. Given that the second of the review's objectives is dealing with long-term debilitating illnesses, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, in the first three months, he will be able to use the review to come up with a strategy to respond to the NAO's criticisms?

Alan Johnson: I am not sure whether I can set a time scale, but that was an extremely important report. We need to study it carefully and work with the Alzheimer's Society to see how we can resolve the problems. The review is crucial. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to see the terms of reference in the House of Commons Library, but as I mentioned, Professor Darzi will look particularly at the new challenges of an ageing population.

Jim Cousins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's desire to go deeper than the professors. In Newcastle, at the university of Northumbria we have an expanded group of physiotherapy graduates with no jobs to go to, and a huge need to raise the quality of physical activity and deal with avoidable pain and discomfort. The north-east health authority, which is responsible for planning and training, has a surplus of 60 million. Will my right hon. Friend knock heads together and get that sorted out?

Alan Johnson: I will look at that problem. It needs local partnerships to tackle those issues in their locality. Once again I say that that is why we need a bottom-up national health service, rather than a top-down one. I am willing to discuss with my hon. Friend the specific matters that he raised, should he wish to come and see me.

David Tredinnick: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his promotion, but say to him that I am astonished that Professor Darzi is working only two days a week on the project? I thought that it was urgent. Surely he should be doing more. May I alert the right hon. Gentleman to a potential problem at his Department of which he may not be aware? There are two important reports on the regulation of Chinese medicine and herbs by Professor Pitillo and the late Lord Chan. He must act on them because European legislation is round the corner, and it would be very much in the mode of Aneurin Bevan, who had a homeopathic doctor and wanted a fully integrated health service.

Alan Johnson: Well, well, if it was good enough for Nye, it is good enough for me. I will look into that, but may I clarify the fact that Professor Darzi is working two days a week for the NHS? He is an esteemed surgeon, and he does that free of charge, incidentally. It is important that he carries on his practice. I know that the Opposition will not appreciate this. I heard their comments from a sedentary position about his being a Minister, but I think it is right that he is a Minister and that he continues to practise. That gives him a special focus. He is already hugely esteemed and highly valued in the profession, but taking away one or other of those aspects would not make his role any easier and, indeed, would diminish it.

Sally Keeble: In relation to the shape and location of hospital services, may I tell my right hon. Friend that our most pressing need in Northampton is for a new acute hospital? Will he ensure that when the proposals for that are drawn up, they will be expedited through the Department and given financial supportI see our new Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Front Benchso that my constituents in a growing town can have the quality of hospital that they deserve for the 21st century?

Alan Johnson: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury knows a thing or two about those aspects of the national health service. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will expedite the matter and make whatever decisions need to be made very quickly.

Evan Harris: The Secretary of State spoke about a more robust partnership between patients and policy makers based on trust, honesty and respect. With reference to rationing, which means that some effective treatments are not available on the NHS, will he be the first Minister to accept that rationing is taking place and that that needs to be done transparently and rationally, as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence seeks to do?

Alan Johnson: I do not know whether I would be the first Secretary of State to accept that that is the case, but I do. That is the reality of how the system works. We set up NICE to take those decisions out of the hands of politicians, and NICE is now world respected. In many countries there are attempts to replicate it. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Neil Turner: I welcome my right hon. Friend's resolve to tackle health inequalities. He will be aware that my primary care trust is underfunded by some 11 million compared with what its funding should be, according to the Department's formula. May I press him to give an assurance that in the next comprehensive spending review he will make substantial progress towards eradicating funding inequalities so that primary care trusts have the resources to tackle those inequalities?

Alan Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. The report by Professor Darzi and in particular his extensive consultation right across the national health service, including on issues such as funding and inequalities in funding, will form a major part of our decision on the CSR. In that respect, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires.

Greg Clark: Whatever the Secretary of State's intentions, my constituents will be worried by yet another review of the NHS, just as they will be worried by the absence from his statement of any reference to the story in the  Financial Times that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last act, cut by a third the NHS capital budget. Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure my constituents that neither the review nor that policy change will have any bearing on the approval of the new Pembury PFI hospital in my constituency announced by the current Chief Secretary three months ago? Can he reassure us that that will be unaffected by his statement and that policy change?

Alan Johnson: I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. I take the opportunity to say, while the Chief Secretary is on the Bench, that the Chief Secretary wrote to the  Financial Times about the story about 2 billion of funding being taken out and made it clear that all we were doing was looking at how much money was spent that year in the NHS. The extra money is still available to be spent this year.

Barry Gardiner: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and in particular the powerful way in which he spoke of the need to address health inequalities. Does he agree that health visitors are some of the most important people in our health service as they are able to reach out to some of the poorest families and most disadvantaged groups in our communities, and that the value that they bring to the health service by addressing those inequalities from an early age is of primary importance?

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of health visitors and health visiting, which is why we have recently had a review and are considering its recommendations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, as always, will be following this with great interest.

Peter Bone: How will the Secretary of State's statement help my constituent, Mrs. Ruby Waterer, a 79-year-old, who went to hospital with an eye complaint only to be told that she would go blind if she did not have three injections? When Mrs. Waterer asked when she could have those, she was told that she could not have them on the NHS, but that she could go down the road a couple of miles and have them done privately for 3,300. That is not the Government's intention, so how will the Secretary of State help Mrs. Waterer?

Alan Johnson: Various comments are being made by my hon. Friends about the hon. Gentleman raising this matter yesterday and his article

Peter Bone: Answer it then.

Alan Johnson: I doubt if I can answer it today, but, with respect, I care more about the hon. Gentleman's constituent than I do about him. It sounds to me as if she has an issue that we need to tackle, and if he writes to me about it, I will look into it.

Barbara Keeley: I welcome the review, but it is surprising that so far we have not touched on carers, particularly of people with dementia, which has been mentioned. Those carers are the experts, with whom the NHS must deal. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in this important review, carers will be listened to, particularly the expert carers, such as those handling dementia?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Alongside the Darzi review is a comprehensive review of carers that was announced recently by the Prime Minister. We are looking to see what extra help we can give to carers, having already done a lot in respect of pensions and the right to request flexible working, but we need to take a series of other measures, because carers save the Government a lot of money, which can be spent elsewhere in the health service. We are probably the first Government to recognise their importance, and we will ensure that the review is completed speedily.

James Brokenshire: To what extent will some of the long-term financial pressures within the NHS be examined in the review, in particular the affordability of PFI-funded hospitals, when Professor Darzi may well come up with models of care that direct patients away from those hospitals, and therefore direct some of the income for those hospitals away from them, challenging their ability to pay the underlying PFI costs that are already entrenched within the system?

Alan Johnson: We will have to deal with Professor Darzi's recommendations when they come up, but we could never have embarked on this huge programme of rebuilding hospitals without PFI. When we came into Government, most of the NHS estate was built before the NHS was created. Now only a fifth of it was there before 1948, and that is because of the biggest hospital building programme ever in this country, and probably one of the biggest in the world. PFI was necessary to ensure that we did that.

Palliative Care

Lindsay Hoyle: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for palliative care for persons who are suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.
	In another place, Baroness Finlay has steered through a similar Bill, without amendment, so it is with that which I wish to continue in this House.
	Palliative care is part of supportive care and it embraces many elements of supportive care. It has been defined by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as affirming life and regarding dying as a normal process; providing relief from pain and other distressing symptoms; integrating the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care; offering a support system to help patients to live as actively as possible until death; and offering a support system to help the family cope during the patient's illness and in their own bereavement.
	As at January 2006, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland there were 193 specialist in-patient units providing 2,774 beds, of which 20 per cent. were NHS beds; 295 home care servicesthis figure includes both primarily advisory services delivered by hospice or NHS-based community palliative care teams and other more sustained care provided in the patient's home; 314 hospital based services; 234 day care services; and 314 bereavement support services.
	Everyone facing a life-threatening illness will need some degree of supportive care in addition to treatment for their condition. NICE has defined supportive care for people with cancer, and with some modification the definition can be used for people with any life-threatening condition. For example, I should like it to be extended to cover sufferers of motor neurone disease.
	About 5,000 people are estimated to be living with motor neurone disease in the United Kingdom, and half of those with MND die within 14 months of diagnosis. Many people with MND are unable to access the palliative care services that they require. In a survey carried out by the Motor Neurone Disease Association in 2005, only 39 per cent. of people with MND had been referred to specialist palliative care services. In addition, there are unacceptable geographical variations in the quality of service provision and that can have a negative impact on the quality of life of people with MND and their families. Not surprisingly, the association believes that specialist palliative care services should be available to everyone with MND, in a setting and at a time of their choice.
	My Bill seeks to broaden the scope of palliative care to cover all those with a terminal illness. It also aims to cater for the needs of those suffering from a terminal illness in allowing them the choice of where to die. In December 2005, a report by the NHS Confederation highlighted the real need to improve end-of-life care for the terminally ill. The report showed that 56 per cent. of terminally ill patients would prefer to die at home, but only 20 per cent. do so. Alternatively, only 11 per cent. of people want to die in hospital, yet 56 per cent. do so. Better co-ordination between service providers is urgently needed if we are to improve end-of-life care for the terminally ill.
	We also need better access to palliative care services. According to Marie Curie Cancer Care, more than 155,000 die of cancer every year, yet Help the Hospices points out that only 3,250 hospice beds are available, and 2,489 are supplied by the voluntary sector. I have campaigned for many years, urging the Government to increase funding to hospices, particularly children's hospices such as Derian House based in my constituency, which is a leader in child care. We must ensure that the Government release more funding. It is alarming that children's hospices are the poor relation in palliative care.
	First, there is an acute shortage of paediatric palliative care medicine consultants. Secondly, children's hospices receive only in the region of 5 per cent. of funding from official sources, compared with 30 per cent. for adult hospices, so we can already see the vast difference in funding from the NHS. I want that anomaly to be addressed, in addition to the clear postcode lottery that exists with palliative care. Terminal illness places great strain on families and loved ones. The least they can expect is to have the necessary support and help in making those final days as comfortable as possible. Extending palliative care would not involve a huge increase in expenditureit mainly requires specialist knowledge in the use of pain-relieving drugs and holistic care to ease the dying process. Marie Curie Cancer Care, in its report Dying at Home, states that for every 1 invested in home palliative care services, 2 will be freed up for the NHS. Despite that, 80 per cent. of resources are allocated to hospital-based care. We need to shift the emphasis in the funding streams.
	In recent years, great strides have been made in palliative carewe all recognise that. Our hospices do a wonderful job in supporting the terminally ill and their families. However, we need to do much more to support the terminally ill. We must ensure that their needs are catered for and that access to treatments, help and support are equal regardless of postcode. The answer is not to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide. Everyone has the right to life and the right to palliative care. That is what my Bill aims to achieve and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, David Taylor, Jim Dobbin, Mr. David Crausby, Geraldine Smith, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Ben Wallace, Mr. Nigel Evans, Simon Hughes, Dr. Brian Iddon and Mr. Bob Laxton.

Palliative Care

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for palliative care for persons who are suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 138].

Orders of the Day

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must tell the House that the Order Paper should have included a tag referring to the Fourth Report of the Work and Pensions Committee on Child Support Reform and the Government's response.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill provides for a new system of child maintenance in Britain. At its heart is the commitment to ensure that whatever happens to the relationship between two parents, the interests of children must always be paramount. However, the Bill also learns from the lessons of the past. It makes tackling child poverty the No. 1 priority for the child maintenance system by ensuring that more of the maintenance paid goes directly to the children and by maximising the number of children living apart from one or both of their parents for whom effective child maintenance arrangements are in place.
	The Bill actively promotes parental responsibility by removing the barriers that prevent parents from reaching their own voluntary agreements. Never again will mutually agreed maintenance arrangements be forcibly overturned by a compulsion for parents with care receiving benefits to use the Child Support Agency. The Bill embeds the principle of choice whereby those on benefits should have the same choice as those not on benefits to make their own arrangements or to utilise the new child maintenance and enforcement commissionCMECto access the statutory scheme. For the first time, the system will no longer discriminate against people simply because they are poor.

Michael Weir: I appreciate and support what the Secretary of State is saying. The Law Society of Scotland has pointed out that under the terms of section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991, a voluntary agreement will be restricted to a 12-month period. Is that the Government's intention? If not, will he consider the fact that many families need the assurance that an agreement will last longer than just 12 months?

Peter Hain: That is not the interpretation that I would put on it, but I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point. We are seeking a durable, long-term basis not only for the children, but for the parents. There is no desire on my part to create, perhaps inadvertently, the situation that he describes.

David Taylor: It is a laudable aim to encourage parents to make their own arrangements. However, is the Secretary of State confident about the position of lone parents on low incomes, perhaps where the split has not been amicable, the non-resident parent is no longer around, income cannot be determined and is opaque, or payments are not being received at all? Given that the CMEC will often be required to act as a last resort in terms of assessment and enforcement, does he have any estimate of the number of cases that might arise, and will the CMEC have the resources to deal with them?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. In these situations, people on low incomes are the most vulnerable and the children are therefore doubly the most vulnerable. The CMEC will have a very important role. However, a significant proportionI think a thirdof those involved would like to make their own voluntary arrangements, but are prevented from doing so by the current structures. We want to facilitate that, but we certainly intend to guard against the situation that he describes. There is the fall-back that the commission has a statutory obligation to act in the way provided for by the Bill, and that will happen.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), may I impress upon him the importance of not undermining the very effective system that we have in Scotland of minutes of agreement, which are entered into after legal advice by both parties and are then registered in the books of council and session, which means that they are summarily enforceable? If those minutes of agreement can be overturned after 12 months, as seems to be the case under the Bill, there may be less incentive for people to enter into them. Will he consider removing the 12-month limit or at least extending it to something in the region of 48 or 60 months?

Peter Hain: We are trying to put in place a more sensible and flexible alternative, and I think that there is widespread cross-party support for that objective. If such arguments are put persuasively in Committee we will obviously want to take account of them. We are not seeking to impose anything, but to make progress. I shall want to bear in mind the points that Scottish Members of Parliament have raised so far.

Frank Field: I hope that the whole House agrees that, where possible, people should come to their own sensible arrangements that they police themselves without involving any state authority. However, is there not a danger that the taxpayer may get lost in all this? The Henshaw report said that if we almost entirely disregarded benefit income, the number of people who made private arrangements would be a mega-number, and therefore the numbers going to the commission would be very small. Fortunately, the previous Prime Minister intervened to prevent the Henshaw doctrine having force immediately. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us how much benefit income will be disregarded for people who come to private arrangements?

Peter Hain: We are still carefully researching incentives to workan issue that my right hon. Friend has continually, and rightly, pressedin order to get this right. I welcome his question, as he has been a missionary in this whole initiative from a very long way back. The commission will have a very important role. It will deal with a significant number of cases; it is not designed to be put into some kind of longstop role. However, as he says, if we can get in place private voluntary arrangements that people want to make, overwhelmingly, in many cases, that is the preferable alternative.

Frank Field: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's comments. However, let us suppose that the Government decide that 100 of benefit income will be disregarded. There would then be a huge push among families to say, We've come to a private arrangement. The carer would say, I'm keeping 100 of taxpayers' money, so it does not really matter what else the other partner contributes. The loss to the taxpayer would be considerable, and ordinary working class families who are sticking together, and where there are two parents, would feel, Gosh, yet again the rules are being rigged against those of us who are decent citizens.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, as always. However, balanced against that is the need for arrangements to tackle child poverty, which is what the new commission is designed to achieve. As I am about to explainwhen I get a chancethat is the Bill's overriding priority, and I know that my right hon. Friend shares the ambition of pursuing that matter as a priority.
	We must strike the right balance. We want to increase the disregard above the 10 that is provided forin itself, it makes the families and children involved 10 a week better off, and that is welcome. But although we want to increase the amount, we must get the balance right and examine the impact that my right hon. Friend described and the danger of causing resentment among hard-working families, who are worried about other ways in which the benefits system works.

Chris Grayling: I appreciate, as I am in the same position, that the Secretary of State is new to the job. None the less, the previous Secretary of State said on 24 July last yearalmost 12 months ago:
	we intend significantly to increase the level of the current disregard of 10. Details will be confirmed later this year.[ Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 598.]
	Why has it not been possible to present those details, not only last year but almost 12 months later, by the time of Second Reading? Will he assure the House that the information will be provided to the Committee before its proceedings start?

Peter Hain: We must get the matter right, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) outlined. I do not want to establish an artificial timetable.  [Interruption.] The Committee will be important and its proceedings will be studied carefully.

Michael Clapham: Clearly, creating a position whereby parents can reach an arrangement is important. Will my right hon. Friend set up measures to encourage parents to do that before the CMEC gets involved?

Peter Hain: Yes. One of the provisions of the measure and of the new non-departmental public body will be a strong information and advice service that reaches out and works with other stakeholders, including One Parent Families, to ensure that those matters are explained and that the process is encouraged. However, the commission will stand ready to step in vigorously, with the purpose of ensuring that the children are protected and get the entitlements that they deserve.

Danny Alexander: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way. Let me clarify the point that he just made. Will the CMEC take responsibility for providing advice and information? Clearly, such provision is important, and several independent advice organisations, such as Citizens Advice, have expressed concerns that the plans are not clear and that, if the CMEC is to take the lead responsibility for advice provision, there could be a conflict of interest.

Peter Hain: There will be no conflict of interest. We want to maximise the opportunities of, for example, Citizens Advice, One Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group. All were involved in the extensive, cross-party consultation that took place before the Bill was drafted and following the Henshaw report. While I am about it, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; I look forward to working and sparring with him.
	The arrangements in the Bill provide for a simpler, less bureaucratic assessment process, with new powers to obtain data from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Never again will the system be frustrated by relying on non-resident parents to provide information on their earnings. The measure legislates for the creation of a new, non-departmental public body, with radically strengthened powers to recover maintenance from those who repeatedly fail to pay.
	The new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will replace the existing Child Support Agency and mark a clean break with the past. The new commission will have primary responsibility for all aspects of operational and policy delivery. The CSA was set up in 1993 to replace an inadequate system of court-administered child maintenance. Despite the best efforts of its staff, it has never fulfilled the purpose for which it was established. We all, including me, know that as constituency Members of Parliament. Its problems are well documented.
	When we came to office in 1997, the agency cost more to run than it collected in maintenance. It took longer to process claims than the courts. We introduced the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which made important changes, simplifying maintenance calculations and strengthening enforcement measures. The agency's performance has improved. Since 1997, it has doubled the number of children who receive maintenance paymentsthat is a credit to its hard-working staff, who do a good job in difficult circumstances.
	The operational improvement plan is helping us to go still further in ensuring that the agency delivers for the parents and children who currently depend on it. That means that 200,000 more children will benefit from maintenance payments, with an additional 40,000 children lifted out of poverty. However, the operational improvement plan for the CSA was designed only to stabilise it and improve its performance in the short term. It cannot address the underlying structural weaknesses of the system.
	For that reason, Sir David Henshaw was asked early last year to advise on a fundamental redesign of the whole system. The Bill builds on his recommendations and embeds three principled objectives in the heart of our reforms. They are to enforce children's rights and parents' responsibilities by maximising the number of cases; to provide a cost-effective and professional service, which gives the taxpayer the best value for money; andmost importantto make the greatest possible contribution to lifting families and children out of poverty. The Bill will deliver those objectives.
	Together with the operational improvement plan, we expect the Bill to increase the number of parents who receive maintenance payments by 90 per cent., cut administration costs by approximately 200 million and lift a further 100,000 children out of poverty.

Mary Creagh: Has my right hon. Friend had time to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice about the Law Commission's review of reforming the law for couples who live together? It is due to be published shortly and will examine more closely what happens when cohabiting couples split. It considers not only the revenue allocation for children and child support, butcriticallythe capital allocation, especially the house where the child is resident. Has my right hon. Friend has a chance to discuss that yet?

Peter Hain: I must confess that I have not. I will ensure that I inquire into the matter and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention because it is important and we must not overlook it. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), our colleague in the other place Lord McKenzie and I will consider the matter.

John Penrose: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of cost effectiveness. Will he clarify whether couples who have a voluntary agreement that breaks down can obtain enforcement of the agreement via the CMEC or will they have to get a CMEC agreement first? If the answer is the latter, it will be much harder to be as cost effective as I believe that he would like it to be.

Peter Hain: As I shall explain shortly, an escape route back to the CMEC is important in the event of a voluntary agreement breaking down. We need to examine the precise way in which that will happen. It is important to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place for the commission to play a statutory role in ensuring that the parent with care and the child or children are protected in such circumstances.

John Penrose: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but I am trying to make the point that if one cannot enforce a voluntary agreement that breaks down other than by creating a new CMEC case, that will reduce the effectiveness of and public trust in voluntary agreements, and he will fundamentally undermine the basic principle of trying to give people an alternative to having to go to the CMEC.

Peter Hain: I thought, at first, that I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, but I must flatly disagree with himI do not say that antagonistically. The new commission will have enforcement powers and provide the necessary protection. I do not understand how it can reincarnate a voluntary agreement. Its role is to provide encouragement for voluntary agreementsthat is the new feature of the system, which I know that the hon. Gentleman supports. However, its back-stop role is to ensure protection and statutory backing when necessary.

David Taylor: The Secretary of States mentions the welcome news that 40,000 more children will be raised out of povertya matter linked with the raising of the disregard and making it cost-effective for the taxpayer. Is it not the case that if there were an absolute disregard of child maintenance incomein respect of jobseeker's allowance and income support, for examplethe number of children lifted out of poverty could be doubled, at a cost of about 200 million, which, though substantial, is less than it would cost if the same effect were achieved through the tax credit system? Is that not worthy of further consideration?

Peter Hain: We obviously have to be very careful about the impact on work incentives. However, the principle behind lifting the disregard in the way the Government and I want is ensuring that those parents who are not currently paying as they shouldbecause they believe that the money is going to the taxpayer rather than to the childrenare encouraged to pay. That problem amounts to a very significant blockage in the existing system, so it is important to get the balance right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead quite properly said earlier, but at the same time we must not lose sight of the main objectiveto lift children out of poverty. As I will explain in more detail later, that contrasts considerably with the aims and circumstances that led the original agency to be established by Margaret Thatcher's Government.

Frank Field: The Secretary of State is providing an estimate of the number of children who will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the Bill. Such lifting will occur in two ways. First, maintenance payments that are not currently paid will flow to the relevant families; or secondly, the disregarded income will be changed. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that his civil servants must have made a calculation that assumes a change in the level of disregard in order to allow him to provide the estimate that he has put before the House today. Will he place in the Library at some later stage a note providing a breakdown of the extent to which the disregard is being changed and of the extent to which increased maintenance payments are envisaged in order to justify the target of lifting so many children out of poverty?

Peter Hain: For a Secretary of State doing this particular job, there is always a certain wariness about accepting a question from my right hon. Friend, who knows more about it than I do and who certainly knows a lot more about it than the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)and, indeed, more than most of the officials who are sitting over there. I will certainly look further into my right hon. Friend's point, but the question of the level of disregard has not been decided yet. A number of issues are involved, not least a discussion with the Treasury.

Chris Grayling: May I ask the Secretary of State to approach the issue in another way? Will he set out for the Houseeither in the form of a note placed in the Library or more directly on the Floor of the House or in Committeethe different assumptions that his officials are making about the impact of the different levels of the disregard? That would help us to understand the impact on levels of child poverty of the different levels of disregardwhether it be 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50. We need to know about officials' assumptions in order to understand the differential impact of different levels of disregard.

Peter Hain: Speaking as a former Leader of the House, I am always anxious to assist the House, and the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that he wants proper accountability of the Executive. When I am ready to do so, I will make available whatever information I can. I am not in a position to do so now and I will not promise to do something that I believe to be inappropriate at this stage. When I can make further progress and am clearer about the level of disregard that we think is feasible and appropriate to meet all the different balancing points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and others have suggested, I will try to assist the House.

Michael Weir: I would like to clarify the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on the issue of minutes of agreement. I was slightly alarmed when he said that in starting CMEC we need to go back to the beginning. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in Scotland, a registered minute of agreement can be used in the same way as a summary decree of court, and I urge him not to overlook that point. That often provides a quicker way of implementing a minute of agreementusually directly by the person involved, but we could perhaps allow CMEC to do it. When a voluntary agreement breaks down, it is important that it be enforced quickly so that we do not go back to square one by making an application to CMEC and having to start all over again.

Peter Hain: That sounds to me like a job application to get on to the Public Bill Committee that considers the Bill, where the hon. Gentleman can put those same arguments [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member shouting No from a sedentary position, which is a little uncharitable! Clearly, there is an issue there and we will want to look further into it. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me or discuss his point further with me in the Department, I would be happy to facilitate that.
	Parts 1 and 2 provide for the establishment of the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and the transfer of functions, staff and property from the Department. The commission will have two key areas of responsibility: first, to deliver statutory child maintenance arrangements for those who cannot make their own arrangements or who decide that it would not be appropriate to do so; and, secondly, to provide the information and support necessary to help parents make their own arrangements for child maintenance.
	The Bill will give the commission the freedom and independence to run its own affairs and to deliver a professional and efficient service, but it will also provide a clear framework within which to carry out its functions. One clear objective is to maximise the number of cases where maintenance arrangements are in place and to provide essential safeguards to ensure the welfare of children and parents with care.
	As such, the commission will have the flexibility to innovate and to adapt its policies in the light of developing experience. In order to maximise efficiency, it will be authorised to contract out some of its functions and charge for the use of its services. We will make regulations, for example, to ensure that if a non-resident parent wilfully takes steps to evade payments in a way that is almost deliberately costly to the commission, the charging option would be available to it.

Jo Swinson: I have dealt with cases involving the self-employed and non-resident parents. On avoiding payments, the Secretary of State's predecessor agreed with me on 27 November last yearreported in  Hansard column 815that the variations regulations were not working well and needed to be reformed. One problem is that at the moment most variations cases go to a tribunal and some non-resident parents use that as a delaying tactica form of bureaucratic sabotage. One of my constituents has gone through six tribunals. Can measures be included in the Bill to enable specialist teams of advisers and arbitrators at the new CMEC to scrutinise variations or exceptions cases at that early stage, in order to avoid sending everything to a tribunal, which causes delays in getting vital maintenance money to children and also costs the taxpayer?

Peter Hain: I believe that the assessments are for 12 months and we are studying the hon. Lady's points. I know that her frustrations are shared by others, particularly in respect of individuals who in some cases are self-employed and able somehow to camouflage their true income and deny the rightful amounts to parents with care and the children who depend on them.
	Similarly, if we are to give parents with care the choice over whether to use the commission or to make voluntary arrangements, we must ensure that they have the information necessary to enable them to take the decision. That is why the new commission will have the responsibility for providing an information and support service designed to help parents in establishing stable and effective maintenance arrangements.
	I am aware that some stakeholders are concerned that there may be a hidden agenda to push as many people away from the statutory service as possible into private arrangements that are unstable or unfair. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of the information and support service is to ensure that we protect vulnerable and low-income families by providing impartial, high-quality information and support, drawing on the best contributions from all sectorsprivate and voluntaryto help parents make their own decisions about what arrangements best suit them, while the commission itself provides an escape route back to the statutory scheme if voluntary arrangements do not work out.
	Part 3 sets the framework within which the new commission will operate. It provides for the redesign of the system, the establishment of new enforcement powers and the transfer of existing cases to the new scheme. The Bill lays the foundations in legislation for an entirely new approach to child maintenance that will empower parents to take responsibility for making their own arrangements while providing strong, effective state support for when that does not happen.
	Research published last month shows that almost two fifths of current CSA new scheme clients on benefit would prefer to make their own arrangements, but at the moment all parents with care claiming benefit are forced to use the child maintenance system, regardless of whether they would prefer to make voluntary arrangements. That is unfair. It takes away responsibility from parents and, too often, produces the wrong outcome for the children involved. The Bill will remove that requirement and restore parental responsibility, putting children first. Additionally, for those who enter into statutory rather than voluntary maintenance arrangements, the Bill will radically reduce the bureaucracy of the assessment process and speed up the gathering of information.
	Receipt of child maintenance currently helps to lift 100,000 children out of poverty. International evidence shows that child maintenance contributes up to 25 per cent. of the reduction in child poverty in some countries. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, it contributes less than 3 per cent. We must turn that around, and providing active support to parents on low incomes to make maintenance arrangements will be particularly crucial to doing so. Jobcentre Plus and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are developing strategies to ensure that low-income families utilise the new information and support service.
	To provide an incentive for low-income parents to follow through their agreements, our intention is to increase substantially the amount of child maintenance to be disregarded when benefits are calculated. From 2008-09, we will extend to all parents with care the 10 benefit disregard that is currently available only to those on the child support scheme introduced in 2003. This means that an extra 55,000 children will benefit from up to 10 a week additional family income. I am committed to increasing that disregard significantly in 2010.
	In the old days under the Tories, the CSA was created as a revenue-collecting agency. The aim was that taxpayers should not be left to pick up the pieces when an irresponsible non-resident parent failed to pay. Our reforms will change the whole basis on which the child maintenance system operates. They will put the focus, rightly, on the children, so that the money that the non-resident parent pays goes straight to the children and not to the state. Changing the benefit arrangements is central to the contribution that child maintenance makes to our fight against child poverty and to the reforms that the Bill introduces.
	Opinion polls constantly report strong levels of support for the idea that non-resident parents should be financially responsible for their childrenI think that we all feel thatyet, under the CSA arrangements, three out of 10 do not pay when we ask them to do so. The Bill will strengthen and streamline our compliance and enforcement powers to ensure that parents quickly comply with their responsibilities. It will also ensure that, if voluntary negotiations break down, the statutory system will be able to step in quickly and provide a mandatory arrangement that will be complied with.

Frank Field: Paying maintenance should never be a criterion for having access to a child, but many people who do pay feel that it is unfair that their good behaviour is never taken into account, in the disputes that go before the courts, as a sign that they are a good parent. Will the Secretary of State consider how, in the Bill, we might discriminate in favour of those who pay maintenance and who wish to be good parents, but who find that they are denied access as a result of the other partner's pressure in the broken relationship, in spite of all the maintenance payments that have been made?

Peter Hain: Obviously, I shall look at everything that my right hon. Friend suggests, because he brings unique experience and authority to the debate. However, I do not want to make the children pawns in these situations. We need to get these things right, but I will take account of what he has said.
	The Bill provides for the commission to take funds from the bank accounts of non-resident parents, which will be particularly important in improving compliance for the self-employed. It also provides for the withdrawal of a non-resident parent's passport and, as an alternative to jail, the imposition of a curfew.

Jeremy Wright: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: May I just finish this point? Then I will give way.
	Members will be aware that the White Paper also consulted on giving the commission the power to remove a non-resident parent's driving licence. We have to find the right balance between introducing powers that encourage non-resident parents to pay and depriving people of their means to live and earn the income that will support their children. After serious consideration, I have decided that this particular power is best left with the courts.

Maria Miller: The Secretary of State rightly talks about the importance of robust enforcement, but is he aware of the National Audit Office report of 2005 which pointed out that 65 per cent. of assessments that come to enforcement contain an error? Does he agree that robust enforcement needs to go hand in hand with better assessment?

Peter Hain: I am not sure that I agree that that 65 per cent. is a representative figure, but we obviously need to get these things right. That is why we are bringing in an entirely new organisation to replace the CSA.
	We must realise that unrealistic expectations about moving from one system to another have blighted previous attempts to reform child support. We must ensure that the new commission is not held back by the failings of the old system. Equally, we must ensure that maintenance payments that are already being made can continue uninterrupted for the benefit of the children.
	Parents will have three options. By the end of 2008, parents claiming benefits will no longer be compelled to use the statutory system, and will therefore be able to make their own voluntary arrangements, if they so choose, supported by the new information and support service of the commission. Secondly, from 2010, parents with a maintenance arrangement already in place, and who both agree that they are happy with it, will be able to ask the commission simply to ensure that the money keeps flowing. This will enable them to avoid the disruption of a whole new assessment that could open up old wounds. Instead, their existing payments will stay at the same rate, and the commission will ensure that the money is efficiently transferred to the parent with care.
	Thirdly, for those unable to come to a voluntary arrangement, or for those without an existing arrangement in place, the commission will support an application to the new statutory system. The commission will begin talking to its clients about the new options in 2008. The actual movement of clients to the new statutory system will start in 2010 and is expected to be finalised in 2013.
	There is a fourth part to the Bill which provides new support for people suffering from the asbestos-related cancer known as mesothelioma. This is now the most common cause of work-related death in Britain. Nearly 2,000 people die every year from this cancer as a result of asbestos exposure, and the number is expected to increase to a peak of 2,500 during the period from 2011 to 2015. It is estimated that one in every 100 men born between 1940 and 1950 will die of the disease.
	Of course, no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families fully for the suffering and loss caused by this terrible illness, but those who are suffering rightly deserve to receive some form of monetary compensation, and to receive payment before it is too late. No one should have to wait years before they see a penny of compensation, especially when, as in many of these cases, people do not have years left to wait. In fact, people with mesothelioma die, on average, within eight to nine months of diagnosis. It is very quick.
	Although we already make some lump sum payments to employees for mesothelioma under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, many sufferers miss out. These include the self-employed, those who lived with asbestos workers and inhaled dust from their clothing, those who lived near asbestos factories, and those who do not know how they got the disease. The Bill means that, once diagnosed, sufferers should receive some compensation within six weeks of making a claim. We are doing that by correcting an anomaly in how we make recoveries of state funds from civil compensation. At present, lump sum payments for mesothelioma and other dust diseases are not subject to such recoveries, which leads to a windfall for insurers and other liability holders, as they can reduce their payouts by the amount of any lump sum paid by the state. That is wrong. The Bill will allow us to recover the lump sum payments from later civil compensation so that the negligent party meets its liability in full.
	By making those recoveries, we aim to fund the new payments without increasing the cost to the public purse. We intend to set the lump sum payment levels so that the overall expenditure matches the expected recoveries. That means that they will initially be lower than the existing lump sum payments, but we will increase the level each year as recoveries increase until they match the levels of our existing 1979 Act scheme payment. We must now get the money to those who need itpeople with mesothelioma must receive some compensation while they are still alive to benefit from it. The Bill will allow us to get some compensation to all sufferers as early as next year. The proposals have been broadly welcomed by our stakeholders and in all parts of the House.
	All Members have constituents who depend on child maintenance payments, and all of us want a system that delivers better outcomes for the children and parents with care who depend on it and which further contributes to reducing child povertyto which our Government are committed, and which we have delivered. After almost two decades of reform, it is high time we got this right. The Bill provides the foundation for a lasting reform and a new start for child maintenance that will deliver fresh opportunity for the children who are affected by their parents splitting up. We need a new system that learns the lessons of the past; promotes parental responsibility; works with parents, rather than against them, to deliver the best outcomes for children; provides the taxpayer with true value for money; and, most importantly, ensures that no children are ever again condemned to poverty simply because their parents are not together. I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Grayling: There cannot be a Member of this House who has not witnessed the harsh financial consequences of relationship break-ups for all involved, particularly children. During the six years I have been in the Houseand I am sure that other Members share my experiencemany women have visited my surgery who were frustrated, and often desperate, about being unable to secure a proper financial settlement for themselves and their children. More often than not, their frustration has been directed at the Child Support Agency's inability to get things rightsometimes to answer the most basic inquiries and deal with the most basic issues.
	It is not only women who have visited my surgery: men have also come to seek my advice on the clumsy way in which the agency has dealt with them. The agency has too often been utterly incompetent. I am sure that I am not alone in having read multiple letters that the agency sent to constituents on the same day saying entirely different things. I have had endless conversations with constituents about their experiences of the agency, such as long, fruitless telephone calls and being passed from person to person, none of whom seemed to know anything about the case in question. However, we should also remember that although not all the agency's staff have passed muster, the vast majority have done their best despite being facing with a deeply flawed system.
	Every Member should share the Bill's aspirations of sorting out the problems and putting in place a better and more workable system. There has been a complete failure of public confidence in the CSA and there must be a fundamental culture change towards the entire process of child maintenance. We welcome elements of the Bill and the new direction. We want parents to take greater responsibility and children clearly to be at the heart of the process. We welcome some of the Bill's proposals, and the principles that underlie it.
	Effective enforcement will play an important part in the change, but there must be a simpler and more efficient system of assessment and case management. Over the past few years, constituents have experienced problems in that regard. That is why we support the move to use income tax data as the basis of future assessment. I have come across numerous cases of women in my constituency who are frustrated because their financial fortunes have been diminished by the absence of a proper process for determining their former husband's or partner's income. I have been told time and again, His income has been set too low, and, He has undeclared sources of income, yet the agency's response to the complaint has been, Well, we have to take his word for it. We understand the frustrations of the women concerned. I am glad that the Government accept that in too many cases that can lead to injustice.
	It is also right to change the focus of how we handle child maintenance. I have always felt that the rules on participation are too tight. It is clearly in everybody's interests if parents can come to a voluntary agreement. Why enmesh the workings of the agency in cases where it is not needed? We support the change in that regard.
	It is right to end compulsory participation in the CSA scheme by all parents with care who are on benefits. That amounts to a vital change from the previous benefit recovery focus to a much clearer focus as part of a wider child poverty strategyagain, putting children at the heart of the process. We welcome many aspects of the Bill, and its principles.
	My party is clearly focused on the importance of the family as the basic building block of a healthy society and on the maintenance of the family structure. We believe that every child has a right to support, both material and emotional, from both parents, and that both parents have an obligation to deliver that support to the child. The family is created when a child is born, and that family responsibility persists regardless of what happens to the relationship between the parents. Our goal as a future Government will be to strengthen the family and to place great importance on early interventions that can help prevent family breakdown. However, relationships and families do break down. Where parents separate we should focus on supporting those separated families to ensure that they continue to provide not only material but emotional support to children.
	The Bill specifically deals with financial support, but I also strongly believe that we must not allow the mechanisms for financial support to undermine other public policy objectives in respect of supporting separated families and supporting families. The comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on that are apposite, and I will return to the issues he raised.
	We need a change in culture so that the continued obligations of parents in separated families are understood and accepted as the norm, and so that the interests of the child are put at the heart of the process. As the Secretary of State says, the provision of good child maintenance arrangements when the family structure breaks down is one of the keys to establishing an effective child poverty strategy. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said that that is close to their hearts.
	However, this cannot and should not be just one of those days when Ministers simply sit back and bask in consensus. I am glad that they are putting in place some of the building blocks for improvement, but after 10 years in government, Ministers cannot divorce themselves from the failings of those years. Although the Secretary of State is new to his job and is therefore grappling with the joys of trying to deal with complicated questions on the Floor of the House after only a few days of getting up to speed on his brief, the fact is that his boss, the new Prime Minister, has for the entire past decade micro-managed domestic policy from No. 11 Downing street. In that time, he has sat back and watched the CSA go from bad to worse, thereby failing many families and children under his watch.
	It is no defence simply to say that the CSA was established under a Conservative GovernmentI am surprised that I have not been intervened on yet to make that point. It is a matter of fact that that was the case, and it was established with the best of intentionsto support those in separated families and to protect the welfare of children. I am not ashamed of that. As we have learned since, however, the best intentions do not always work out in the detail of practice, and never has that been clearer than in the case of the CSA.

Peter Hain: May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman's rant against the Prime Minister

David Evennett: My hon. Friend has been speaking pearls of wisdom.

Peter Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that I ain't heard nothing yet from his hon. Friend?
	May I draw attention to the operational improvement plan that has been put in place for the CSA? I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about its staff, because they deserve a great deal of praise for the tremendous improvement in performance. Let us take a look at what all this means. In March 2006, 591,000 children benefited from the agency's collecting or arranging maintenance. The target for March 2008 is 720,000 childrena significant riseand the total is already rising beyond the 2006 figure. The target for 2009 is some 791,000 children. That means an increase of roughly 200,000 over the period concerned, which is a significant increase, as the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge.

Chris Grayling: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government first started addressing this issue in 2000, before I became a Member of this House. I wish that I could have sat him down with some of the women let down by the CSA with whom I have had conversations in the years since then, and allowed him to explain to them the statistical information that he has just given. I think that they would have given him pretty short shrift.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. His assuming a monopoly of moral wisdom on this issue does not encourage progress. We have all had problems with CSA cases. I remember being one of the earliest MPs to identifyin the early 1990sthe problems with the original CSA. It was clear that the whole construct brought in by the previous Government, although they were trying to achieve an honourable objective, was extremely destructive, ineffective, discriminatory and inefficient, and penalised people across the piece. We have all dealt with such cases for well over a decade. We are trying to get things right, so making the points that the hon. Gentleman is making does not help.

Chris Grayling: In the past few years, the Government have spent more than 500 million sorting out this problem, and still we are back in the House today, setting up the system again, so the Secretary of State does not have much of a record to defend. The truth is that

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Although we accept that there have been improvements over the years, my constituents, for example, are still facing new and increasing problems because of the agency's ethos and the IT systems, which have continued to fail. So although we accept that what the Secretary of State says about improvements is right, new cases involving considerable failures are still arising.

Chris Grayling: Indeed, and it is a shame that it has taken so long to make some of the proposed changes. As I have said to the Secretary of State, we approve of some of the principles in the Bill, but a lot of detail still needs to be addressed.
	The truth is that this Government have been bedevilled by their inability to deliver. This is not the first time that they have tried to get to grips with this problem. The Secretary of State himself referred to interim improvements made three or four years ago in an effort to sort things out. The Government have made some progress, but many of the people whom we deal with dailyI appreciate that this point applies to Members in all parts of the Houseare still getting nowhere. The National Audit Office has said that overall, the vastly expensive system that has been put in place to make the CSA work has proved no more effective than its predecessor. So let us hope that the latest attempt to sort out the situation can make a difference. Given the Government's track record to date, it would hardly be surprising if people waiting for the agency and its successor to sort out their problems were frustrated again.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why Members in all parts of the House have so many such cases of concern is that the CSA does not use effectively some of the powers that it already has? Many constituency cases are based on the argument that, despite information being presented to the agency by the parent with care, it does not take appropriate action. It is therefore not enough simply to provide extra powers; such powers have to be used.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We can only hope that the successor bodyI will return to the issue of how much of a successor it really iscan make a difference and deal with the problems itself. My hon. Friend is absolutely rightthe truth is that in few policy areas can we find a clearer case of big promises from the Government, followed by failure to deliver.
	The Government claim that the Bill will help to tackle child poverty. That is to be lauded, but the truth is that the Prime Minister moved next door last week after 10 years of rhetoric about child poverty in which the figures actually increased, rather than decreased. The real picture today is that child poverty rose by 100,000 before housing costs last year, and by 200,000 after housing costs. After those 10 years, the total figure for child poverty now stands at 2.8 million before housing costs and 3.8 million after housing costs.
	The Bill will go only a small part of the way in dealing with a problem of this scale, but for that part we welcome it, even though, as we agree, it is overdue. And even though it is overdue and the Government have had so much time to prepare it, they have still managed yet again to present Parliament with legislation that is praiseworthy in intent, but which leaves many questions still to answer, many details still to be addressed and a lot of informationalthough long promisednot yet available to the House. Ironically, the Bill, rather than being flawed in detail, contains very little detail. It is another of those measures that contain little substance and create a loose framework, leaving it to the Secretary of State to work out the details. Many of the Bill's clauses are built around phrases such as arrangements will be made and the Secretary of State may.
	Let me put the Secretary of State on notice that before we step aside to allow him to act, we will expect a lot more detail from him in Committee on how he intends to deal with the small print. It would help the Committee if he published draft regulations before it discusses these issues, so that we could understand the detail behind his intentions.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point about the need to publish regulations in draft. As the Secretary of State knows, a large volume of draft regulations relating to the Welfare Reform Billon whose Standing Committee I servedwere published in advance, so that the Committee could scrutinise them. I hope that that practice will be followed by this Department on this Bill when the Committee stage starts.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; let us hope that the Secretary of State picks up on it and publishes the relevant details.
	As the hon. Gentleman knowsand as we learned yesterday on hearing the details of the statement on constitutional reformwe have to study the small print extremely carefully under this Government, since the advent of the new Prime Minister and his new appointments.

Danny Alexander: And before.

Chris Grayling: Absolutely. Having waited so long for these essential reforms on such an important subject, which affect the lives of so many families in the UK, it is essential that we get them right.
	Let me return to the question of how much is really changingthe point that I made a moment ago in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright). The creation of a new child maintenance and enforcement commission sounds like a brave new departure in this important area: a new body, a new location, a new team, new systems to improve on what we had beforea completely fresh approach to the service that will change the frustrations of the past few years. I have no doubt that that is what people will be expecting from this Government and this Bill, but if I am not mistaken, that is not necessarily what is happening.
	It appears that the organisational side of the Bill involves unscrewing the CSA name-plate from the front of its building and replacing it with one saying Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. The Government are pretty good at changing name-plates. We have not forgotten the 600 bill for replacing the name-plate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister with one saying, Deputy Prime Minister's Office. Of course, inside the new agency's building, there will be the same team of people in the same offices using the same computer systemthe one that has caused the Government so many headaches over the past few years.
	Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us in his winding-up speech what is being done internally to ensure that this is much more than just a re-branding exercise for the CSA. What is actually being done to ensure a real culture change within the organisation? Are the Government really planning to maintain the same internal systems, or will they need to spend yet more large sums of taxpayers' money on yet another new computer system? And why is it taking so long for the transition to the new system to take place? The new approach, we understand, will not be fully operational until 2013most of the way through the next Parliament. Why is the change to a system in which assessments are based on information from Revenue and Customs not being fast-tracked? After all, it will be dealing with one of the biggest sources of current frustration with the present system. If Ministers can accelerate that change, they will have our support in doing so.
	When the Bill is in Committee, my hon. Friends will want to probe the Government in detail about whether they intend that there should be support for couples seeking to enter into voluntary agreements. Many interest groups, for example, would like a formal structure whereby the new agency can provide back-up support for couples as they negotiate with each other. In particular, we expect to discuss in detail in Committee whether the new agency should be able to offer women information about the income levels of their former husbands or partners, in order to help inform those voluntary agreements. Given that these negotiations will be taking place at a very emotional, sensitive and difficult time for those involved, it is absolutely right that the Committee look carefully at the level of support given to those embarking on the task of reaching a voluntary agreement.
	Likewise, there is an issue about how equipped the voluntary sector will be to cope with the advice that undoubtedly it will be asked to give. I know how hard pressed many such groups are at the moment. The citizens advice bureau in my constituency is facing more and more demands for its services, particularly with the worrying growth in consumer debt. I have no doubt that the welcome change to greater use of voluntary agreements will place an extra burden on such organisations in my constituency and around the country. What steps are the Government planning to take to ensure that the voluntary sector can cope?

John Penrose: It seems sensible that the advice functions should be outsourced, as CMEC will be focusing on enforcement. If so, and if it is to be an organisation with teeth, it is unlikely to have the right approach and atmosphere for people wanting a consensual advice service as well. If the services are to be outsourced, it is essential that the right organisations are chosen, and that the commissioning operation is sensitive to that. It must come equipped with sufficient money to fund these advice organisations even if they are not provided in-house.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points, and we will look forward with interest to seeing what information the Government give us in Committee on that subject. This is another example of an area in which we have precious little detail about what the Government envisage for an important part of the Bill.
	At the top of that list is the question of the benefits disregard. We understand the theory of what the Government are trying to do but we will need to discuss in Committee with Ministers the potential consequences of their plansif they are prepared to provide details by then.
	I know that some see the income disregard as an essential tool to motivate parents on benefits to participate in the system and to make sure that money actually gets to the child rather than the state. It has also been seen as a way of targeting funding on children to ensure that we can lift them out of poverty. But as the Secretary of State rightly said, there is a counter-argument, which is that the disregard could end up providing a perverse incentive to separate. Although I do not for a moment believe that money is the prime motivator for people to stay together or to separate, the harsh reality is that in some cases it does make a difference, and we should not use either our tax or our benefits system in a way that encourages family break-up.
	I am disappointed that the new Secretary of State does not have more information for the House today, and that he was not able to offer to provide the information sought by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and myself. I appreciate that it is early days, but will he look at the issue again and come back with information as quickly as possible, as it is central to the viability, the cost and the working of the scheme? The Government are asking the House to debate the fundamentals of the Billin the Chamber today, and in Committeewithout that information. That suggests that the Government are not being as full, open and collaborative with Members as they should be, given the supposed change of tone in the Government.
	It is also important that the Committee examine in detail the issue of self-employment. We think that the previous-year assessment basis and the disregard of income changes of up to 25 per cent. are logical for people in normal PAYE employment. But we need to understand how the Government intend to handle self-employment. I have lost count of the number of times that women have come to see me with the complaint that their former husband or partner is declaring a very low income to the CSA, but is self-employed and clearly hiding a much higher income; he may have a big house and a big car. The frustration of those women is clear; they say, I know he's better off than he says. He's telling the CSA that he's only earning 17,000, and the CSA says it will take his word for it. That is obviously wrong and unfair.
	The Secretary of State will know that while it is difficult to dodge factual information within the conventional PAYE system, there is greater flexibility for self-employed individuals to avoid the full force of the system. Will the Government explain in Committee in more detail how they intend to address the issue and tackle the potential problems that self-employment can create?
	The one part of the Bill that is long on detail is the section about enforcement. I am all in favour of strong enforcement. Too many men have been able to get away without meeting payments, knowing that there is little prospect of real enforcement. The message that this sends beyond the families is potentially damaging as well. Fatherhood is, and should always be, a big personal obligation. One of the reasons for the original establishment of the Child Support Agency was to ensure that fathers lived up to their obligations, and that they understood that there was an organisation that would ensure that they could not walk away from those obligations, leaving mothers and children dependent on benefits.
	That was not just for fathers at the end of a relationship, but for those who never really got into the relationship in the first place and regarded fatherhood as something transitory. Sadly, that does happen in our society. We still get high-profile cases that undermine confidence. Last year the  Metro newspaper reported the case of a 21-year-old, Keith Macdonald, who had already fathered seven children with seven different women, running up a benefit cost of an estimated million pounds a year. Cases like that make the need for a range of sanctions to deal with the issues contained in the Bill desirable and necessary, and we support that principle.
	There are issues about enforcement and the curfews. How does one enforce a curfew? The idea of withdrawing passports is a good one, but it worries me that the one bit of the Bill about which we have detailby contrast with the other areas that we have addressed today, where there is precious little detailis enforcement. This comes from a Government who have dined out on spin for the last decade. It is noticeable that the detail is all about things that might make a headline in the newspapers, while the important detail remains unresolved. Too many questions remain unansweredwhich would of course be in no way typical of what we have experienced for the past decade under the Government. I hope that the new Secretary of State will be able to do things a little better.
	I have no doubt that change is necessary. Too many women in my own constituency, and millions around the country, have been left stranded by the incompetence of the CSA in the past few years and by the Government's failure to get to grips with the problem. It is not just the women. Men, too, have found themselves caught up in the failings of the agency; not knowing quite where they stand or what they have to pay. When Ministers spend 500 million of taxpayers' money and the NAO says that things have got no better, they really have cause to be ashamed.

Frank Field: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, will he give the House one piece of information? He has criticised the Government for making errors for 10 years, but he then says that they are bringing forward proposals for change. To what extent does he support these changes? He has made some valid points, particularly about the disregard, which is at the heart of the Bill, and about which do not have information. But will he divide the House on Second Reading? Or does he think that, on balance, the House should support the Bill, although he may come back on Report and divide the House then, if we still do not have the information?

Chris Grayling: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State that we have no intention of dividing the House this afternoon. The principles behind the Bill are worth while and it deserves to go into Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and I will have many questions to put to Ministers as the Bill goes through the House. But we all hope that this time, they have got it right, and that the change can make a difference so that in future, mothers and fathers will be able to resolve their affairs through a system that is fair, transparent and effective, and that those who step outside the rules will face proper sanctions.
	The truth is that the Bill is short on detail. The changes to be made may be the ones that are needed, but too many questions remain unanswered. A lot of work needs to be done in Committee; the Government still have a lot to do. This time, they cannot afford to get it wrong. Too much rides on the Bill: the financial well-being of women around the country, and a fair deal for the menbut above all, the interests of the children, the innocent victims of relationships gone wrong. For their interests, more than any others, the Bill and the Government need to get it right.

Michael Clapham: I welcome the new DWP team to their positions and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), will make sure that the DWP continues to play the part that it has done previously. The Bill is extremely important. The CSA became operative in 1993 following the Child Support Act 1991. By 1995, we had had the first reform, under the Conservative Government, because the system was not working as expected.
	Then we had the second reform in 2000, which introduced a new calculation, but that was not implemented until 2003. Nevertheless, we did see improvements. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned the costs, but in 1995, 1.05 was spent for every 1 recouped for families. After the second reform, that changed dramatically, so there was a clear improvement in efficiency after that reform. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) looks a little bemused at that, but the document produced by the Library includes that figure.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that collecting 1.85 for every 1 spent in doing so is not good enough?

Michael Clapham: I accept that it is not good enough, but we have seen gradual improvements. When the process was examined further, it was recognised that fundamental change was needed. The former Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, made the point in February 2006 that the failures in the scheme clearly showed that it was not fit for purpose. He then called on Sir David Henshaw to provide a report after analysing how the scheme was operating. That was done and became the basis of the White Paper. It was recognised that a clear break with the CSA and the previous management system was necessary, and Sir David Henshaw's report made that plain.
	The recommendations of the Henshaw report, together with the recommendations in the White Paper, form the basis for the Bill, which should be welcomed.

Maria Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman happy that the clear break that he mentions will be achieved if, as is detailed in the Bill, there is a complete transfer of CSA staff, IT system and even buildings? Is that the clear break that Sir David Henshaw talked of and will the new organisation be rid of any taint of failure in the past?

Michael Clapham: In talking about a clear break, Sir David Henshaw realised that the staff, who have worked hardas has been recognised on both sides of the Housewould continue to be used. Some of the IT systems will continue in use, but what is important is that CMEC has a role to play in advising people about consensual arrangements. Such arrangements, which will flow from the advice that CMEC gives, will considerably reduce the burden on the new organisation, which will allow it to foster a culture of efficiency, care and understanding that will result in a much improved system.
	Central to CMEC will be the way in which it is able to advise people to enter into consensual arrangements. It will deal with people who previously could not enter into arrangements because of the benefits that they were drawing down. The new Bill proposes that people on benefits should be able to enter into arrangements. Some two fifths of people who receive benefit would like to enter into a consensual arrangement on maintenance with their absent partner, so we will see many more such arrangements, which will relieve the burden on the organisation. So although it will use the same IT systems and the sameexperienced and hard workingstaff, the new culture will ensure that the organisation can focus and deliver, in a way that the CSA did not.

Frank Field: I wish to emphasise the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. In the past 10 years, we have had two big experiments, one of which was tax credits, which were sparkly and new, and taken into a different Department. However, a fair amount of chaos resulted and continues to result. Another benefit called pension credit was run by the DWP and on the old IT system and with the existing staff, but I have never had a complaint about it. While it sounds good to say that we should have a spanking new system, there can be dangers in starting from scratch, so I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a huge amount of goodwill with the staff already in the system and it would be foolish to destroy that for the sake of a press release on the creation of the new agency.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment, which will have been heard by the Opposition. They will be able to take from that the point that taking older systems and driving them with a new culture can actually deliver.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he is taking, and I agree with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Just setting up a shiny new organisation with a new building and a new set of people will not achieve what we want to achieve. I wish to reassure my hon. Friendwho rightly takes a great interest in such matters, as do Ithat the new staff will have full trade union rights and retain their pension rights and conditions of service. That will enhance confidence among the staff that they can deliver the challenging task that the Bill sets them.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. The very fact that trade union rights will be underpinned will, alongside continuity of salaries and no redundancies, contribute to a staff who are committed to ensuring that they deliver a service of the standard that their clients wish to see.
	The main aim of the Bill is to tackle child poverty, and the disregard makes that a possibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the change to the disregard could mean that 100,000 children would be lifted out of poverty, and that would be a major step forward. People will enter into consensual arrangements, but we should bear in mind that that could cause difficulties. Women who have parted from their husbands or partners because of domestic violence could find that pressure is put on them to come to an arrangement that is not as suitable for them as it might be. We need to keep an eye on that. I hope that the Secretary of State and his staff will do that, as it is an important matter.
	Parents will get advice, but how will it be made available? We must make sure that there are people who can explain the advice being given to couples thinking about entering into an arrangement. The service must be cost-effective and professional, and seen to be so.

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is right to say that private agreements will play an important part in driving the culture change, but does he share my disappointment that the Bill does not contain more detail about how CMEC will fulfil its role?

Michael Clapham: I hope that we will be able to get the details of how CMEC will do its work when we discuss the Bill in Committee. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will play her part in ensuring that we do.
	This is a Bill for families. It is focused on children, and I think that it will bring many improvements. It is due to be in full operation by 2013, and I expect it to give families a chance to ensure that they have an income that will support their lifestyles.
	The Government deserve congratulation on part 4 of the Bill, which deals with the payments made to sufferers of mesothelioma cancer. At present, they can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit, and the Government should be praised for ending the dual system that used to be in force. Under it, a person diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer by a hospital consultant then had to see the DWP doctor for an endorsement of that diagnosis before being able to draw the benefit. Now, the consultant's report on a person diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer is used as the basis for the payment of industrial injuries disablement benefit, which is paid at 100 per cent. That has been a great step forward.
	Alternatively, the benefit could be claimed as a result of an action for civil damages under the common law. Where such an action has not been possible, a sufferer has been able to make a claim for payment under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. That legislation was brought in originally to deal with problems suffered by slate quarrymen, but up to now payments have been limited by the fact that they had to be decided in the industrial sphere. That meant, for example, that a woman who developed mesothelioma cancer from the fibre on her husband's clothing was not able to claim payment under the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme.
	The Bill is a great step forward because it allows a woman in that position to make a claim under the 1979 Act. The Government have in effect provided a no-fault liability scheme for mesothelioma sufferers. Moreover, the Bill also means that another category of peoplethose who live near a factory where asbestos is usedwill now be able to make a claim.
	As I have said, the Government deserve to be congratulated, but it is important that we understand the size of the problem. The document provided by the Library makes some astounding assumptions about death rates. For example, Robin Howie, an industrial hygienist, has suggested that in the 91 years between 1929 and 2020, there are likely to be between 663,000 and 803,000 deaths in the UK caused by problems with asbestos. Mesothelioma sufferers will be part of that total, and we know that the number of diagnoses of the disease is rising. At present, there are some 1,800 or 1,900 a year, but the total is likely to continue to increase until 2015, after which it will plateau and fall away by 2050. It is clear, therefore, that an enormous number of people will die as a result of exposure to the fatal fibre that is asbestos.
	We must not forget that the TUC has argued that other cancers as well as mesothelioma are caused by asbestos. We can be sure that asbestos fibre causes mesothelioma but, although the evidence is not quite as strong for other cancers, we know that 4,500 people die each year as a result of exposure to asbestos. The TUC is worried that the number of such deaths between 2000 and 2050 will be extremely high.
	Peter Martin wrote an article that appeared in  The Sunday Times magazine of 17 May 2004, in which he predicted that, in the UK alone, there would be 186,000 deaths between 2000 and 2020 as a result of exposure to asbestos. It is therefore extremely important to have a no-fault compensation scheme for people who develop mesothelioma cancer.
	I look forward to the time when the compensation recovery unit is able to secure payments as a result of successful civil actions brought by people who previously claimed under the 1979 Act, as that will help us to ensure that payments under the Act will equal the payments made as a result of civil claims. They may be lower in the beginning, but I am sure that we will catch up. The average payment made under the scheme is between 6,000 and 14,000not a lot of money, but people in the last months of their lives can use that resource to make their lives a little easier.
	I very much welcome the Bill. I appreciate the changes that it makes to the system of maintenance payments, but I am most pleased by the introduction of the no-fault liability scheme for sufferers of mesothelioma cancer.

Danny Alexander: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and I want to associate myself with his remarks about mesothelioma. He has worked very hard on behalf of the disease's many sufferers and he pioneered the all-party group, so he deserves great credit for the fact that the Government have brought forward the measures in part 4 of the Bill, which my party also intends to support.
	I welcome the new Secretary of State to his position. He has made a good start over the past two days with two debates on two complicated issues. His predecessor is a hard act to follow. I welcome the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to his position, too. We are all new in these roles. Our predecessors formed consensus when appropriate, but their exchanges were robust when that was appropriate, so I hope that both elements will continue during our periods in these positions.
	I am particularly pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), retains his place in the ministerial team. He has been an assiduous Minister and, as he knows, I have had cause to be grateful to him in relation to a Child Support Agency case. His work in showing what can be achieved adds to the disappointment in the many cases where such progress is not made, but I am grateful to him for what he has done. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) into whose enormous shoes I step with some trepidation. His hard work and assiduousness in this portfolio mean that he is a hard act for me to follow.
	There has been a particular moment of trepidation for me in relation to the debate, although it is not so much to do with the debate as with the fact that I imminently expect to receive a message that my wife is on her way to hospital to give birth to our first child, due on Saturday. If that message arrives, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) has offered to step in to replace me.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has my congratulations and those of the whole House on that big event. If he feels like giving me his speech and trotting off to help his wife, I shall be happy to read it afterwards. He could then get on with more important things.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but my wife is not yet on her way to hospital. He can rest assured that if she were I should certainly not be hereimportant though the debate is.
	As the Secretary of State said earlier, the interests of children must be at the forefront of our minds. Whatever disadvantages they may face because of their circumstances, it is important that financial disadvantage is not added to the list. That is the context for our debate on the Bill.
	The Liberal Democrats have some deep concerns about the Bill, but we welcome some of its core principlescertainly, the idea of encouraging more private arrangements in all classes of case where that is appropriate and where it can be ensured that the arrangements can be carried out consistently, especially where benefit payments are involved. The Bill frees people to make private arrangements and that is welcome. The increased focus on tackling child poverty is an important aspectthe measures are no longer simply about reducing public expenditure on claims for child maintenance.
	The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have signed up to the Government's aspiration to abolish child poverty by 2020 and it is good that the presentation of the Bill took that aim into account. The provisions on greater effectiveness in the collection of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders are important, but that approach should also apply to the Government's attitude to the 3.5 billion of outstanding arrears. That point has not yet been made today, so I hope that when the Minister winds up he will make clear the Government's plans for recovering that huge amount of historical debt. The Government's figures suggest that they regard 1.9 billion as possibly uncollectable, which is a worrying statistic. We have not yet heard from Ministers what they anticipate the CMEC's attitude will be to that debt.
	The debate is not just about principles; it is, importantly, about practice. As we have seen, since the CSA was established the devil is in the detail, in particular the administration. Perhaps unlike the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, I approach the Bill with a certain pessimism, which is shared by at least some outside organisations. The citizens advice bureau briefing for the debate said that
	there must be major doubts about whether the Bill's proposals will in practice resolve the seemingly intransigent problems afflicting child support, which mean that only one in three children who should be benefiting from some child support are actually receiving anything.
	The CAB also pointed out that the pace of reform was disappointingly slow. As has been said, we need to consider the proposed reforms against the background of administrative failure and the huge backlog of uncleared cases in two systemsshortly to become three. The backlog is getting longer and the average time for an assessment is now 500 days.

Michael Weir: I agree entirely. The fact that two or three systems are operating in the agency undermines confidence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should have cut the Gordian knot and put everybody into the same system to show that there was a new fairness in child maintenance?

Danny Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes an important point. The continuation of three systems will be a ball and chain on the new agency. We have heard from the Secretary of State and from the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone about the aspirations for a change of culture, but the ball and chain effect of those old systems will be a serious problem for the new agency to tackle.
	There are IT problems and questions about the administrative competence of the organisation. Furthermore, when the CSA was established and again when the 2001 reforms were implemented in 2003, there was over-optimism about how quickly things could change. We have to counter those problems, especially given the fact that in the 1.4 million cases being handled by the CSA, only 455,000 of the 750,000 non-resident parents liable for maintenance actually pay anything. I am deeply concerned that the mistakes may be repeated in the new system, so I counsel the House that the reforms are doomed to failure in meeting the aspirations that have been set out unless there is a rapid change of course to address some of the administrative problems.
	Both the Government and the Conservatives made the point that many of the CSA staff are hard working and have a sense of commitment. I associate myself with those remarks. A large number of the staff are trying their best in incredibly difficult circumstances, not least those imposed on them by the systemfor example, the phone and IT systems. However, the Secretary of State's justified praise for many CSA staff needs to be put into the context of the Government's plans for significant staffing reductions at the agency. By March 2008, over an 18-month period, there will be a staff reduction of 20 per cent. About 2,000 staff will be taken away from the CSA at a time when I and, I hope, the whole House, would have expected a real effort to be made. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), if we are to clear the backlog of cases and get the new agency off to a good start, such a dramatic cut in staff is completely the wrong approach.

Michael Weir: To emphasise that point, another problem is that when people phone the CSA, they never speak to the same person twice. If we are to tackle the problems, the same officer should deal with the case from start to finish, which will not happen if staff numbers are being cut to the extent proposed for the existing CSA. I suspect the situation will be the same for the CMEC.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman may have had the same experience as I haveof the most difficult cases being referred to the office in Bolton, which I believe does not take incoming calls. There may be good reasons for that. However, it adds to the sense of frustration, particularly for Members of Parliament who are pursuing cases [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) is echoing that sentiment.
	The staff cuts are taking place against a background of poor performance and uncollected arrears. Given that, the CMEC does not look like the clean break recommended by Sir David Henshaw; it seems to be much more like a rebadging of the existing operation. It will have to manage three maintenance systems simultaneously, as well as collect past arrears. I accept the Minister's good intentions, but despite them the staffing cuts mean that the new agency risks being crippled by the problems of the old one. I hope that the Minister will address that serious point in his closing remarks.
	Heroic assumptions have been made about the extent to which the Government believe that large numbers of people will shift towards making private agreements. I support the objective of making them. However, there is the context of the staff reductions and if the aspiration for a large number of new private agreements is not met, either the CMEC will be overloaded and unable to cope or huge numbers will opt out of the system, not make a private agreement and therefore have no maintenance at all. That is a serious potential backward step.
	Furthermore, the CMEC will have to process up to 600,000 benefit cases, which will automatically fall off the system next year. On top of even that, there will be an extra administrative burden if large numbers of people choose to withdraw their cases under the old system and reapply under the newand the hon. Member for Angus suggested that many would. That is the context that leaves me pessimistic.
	I come to some of the specific elements of the Bill. I have said that the Liberal Democrats support the aspiration for private arrangements. However, the Bill does not make obvious how the Government expect large numbers of people to come to their own private arrangements. As I said, there is a risk that many will end up with no maintenance arrangement at all. Meanwhile, the Government assume that there will be an enormous decline in CMEC cases; an assumption is being made that there will be large numbers of private arrangements, and administrative costs are planned to fall by 200 million a year from the current 570 million. That would be a huge contraction in the budget. Clearly, if the reforms were successful both sides of the House would expect a reduction in the amount of money needed to run the system. However, to plan ahead to cut the budget before we have seen how the new system is performing seems to put the cart before the horseor perhaps that should be the other way round.

Maria Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman share my slight concern about the difference between the numbers that we were given by the former Secretary of State on how many people the Government expect to use the new system, and the numbers that appear in the regulatory impact assessment? I recall the former Secretary of State talking about a halving of the numbers of people using the CMECin other words, half the number of people currently using the CSA would use the CMECyet the regulatory impact assessment says that there would merely be a 400,000 decline. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that discrepancy?

Danny Alexander: I certainly do. I hope that that matter will be teased out in Committee. To a large extent, the underlying assumptions and the factual basis on which they are generated will determine how successful or otherwise the reforms will be.
	The point about the 12-month rule has been madeparticularly in the Scottish contextby my hon. Friends, who are no longer in their places. There is a concern about the rule, which means that after 12 months of a private arrangement, the people concerned will be free to opt back into the CMEC system. In some cases, that is a disincentive to private arrangements. That is especially the case in the Scottish context, where, as the Minister will know, Scots law provides for a systemnot found in English lawof the registered minute of agreement, described perfectly by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). There is a need to protect that, at least in Scotland, perhaps by extending the 12-month rule to a 48-month rule, for example. I hope that the Minister will be willing to consider that. Perhaps he could also consider the benefits of the Scottish system of registered minutes of agreement and whether that wisdom of Scots law could benefit people in England and Wales.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Danny Alexander: I shall give way one last time.

Michael Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is very generous. There is also the point that if there were a problem, the CMEC, rather than sheriff officers or the courts, could be given the power to enforce the minute of agreement. That would short-circuit the process, and that is where we are all trying to get to.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In the current legal position, I suspect that empowering the CMEC to enforce the agreements would involve a provision in each individual agreement. However, there are plenty of solicitors around who could make such an arrangement work.
	The basis of the Government's approach to private agreements is the advice system that will be put in place. It is essential that there should be good quality advice, particularly face-to-face advice. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that he expected the CMEC to be the principal dispensary of such advice, although he said that function would not be exclusive to the new organisation. I note that in its excellent report, the Select Committee recommended a degree of separation between the CMEC and the advice function, not least because if the CMEC takes tough powers, people might be dissuaded from going to it for advice. Going to a neutral third party, such as a citizens advice bureau or another organisation of the sort mentioned by the Secretary of State, might be much better. It is important to ensure that the advice networks used for that purpose are properly funded and set up. Again, we need a clear statement from the Government about how they wish to establish such advice networks.
	There has already been a debate about the maintenance disregard. I share the Government's view that the 10 figure is too low and should be raised. I do not accept the objections to that, which have been raised in this debate. Clearly, there has to be a cap at some level and I hope that, before the Committee stage, the Minister will be able to make that level clear. It has to be there to prevent abuse. However, there is also a question of timing. The current plan is that the higher disregard will not be introduced until 2011, but existing benefit claimants will be expected to reapply under the new system, or opt out with a private arrangement, in 2008. That means that the existing 10 disregard will apply in those circumstances. I am concerned that not applying the higher disregard at the same time as benefit claimants are told to reapply will result in a disincentive for those who need to reapply, because they will not feel that they will get any major financial benefit. The timings should be the same.
	The new assessment process will be based on income from the previous year. I welcome that fact that the Minister has taken on board the view that data from Revenue and Customs should be used for that purpose. That is a good start. The Liberal Democrats are of the view that that agency should also be responsible for collection, and I shall return to that point later. I hope that that point will be investigated before anything is settled on. None the less, the information will still be one or two years out of date and there will be an administrative burden of annual reassessment.
	There is also a real concern about the percentage figures that the Government are recommending in respect of fluctuations of income before a reassessment is madethey are talking about a 25 per cent. fall in income or a 25 per cent. rise. The organisation Resolution, which specialises in such matters, has pointed out an example of a case in which a 24 per cent. fall in the income of the non-resident parent could lead to a rise in the amount of maintenance that they pay, from 29.2 per cent. of their income to 42.4 per cent., without, at the moment, any right of appeal.
	I hope that the Minister will consider having an asymmetric rule to ensure that the figure that would trigger reassessment would be lower for a fall than a rise. Perhaps we could be talking about cases in which the non-resident parent has a fall in income of, say, 10 per cent., but there could be discussion of the figure. Clearly, the smaller the figure, the greater the administrative burden. However, in the case of a fall in NRP income, there is a strong case for having a lower figure and therefore an asymmetric rule.
	The Government also propose to raise the minimum weekly payment in benefit cases from 5 a week to 7a 40 per cent. rise. I have some doubts about the fairness of that proposal against the general background of the low level of benefits and the upratings that we have seen in recent years. If such a change is to be introduced, it should be done only in the context of a wholesale review of the adequacy of the benefits system. We have to bear in mind that a young person on jobseeker's allowance may be on only 45 a week, so that increase could well have a substantial impact on their standard of living. I hope that the Minister can deal with that important point of detail.
	We are deeply sceptical about the proposals to allow the new agency to charge for its services. Previous powers that have been available have not been used and they should not be used now. They will be a disincentive to use the system. There may well be a case in future for charging in cases of non-compliance as an incentive for the non-compliant personusually the non-resident parentto pay. However, in the general run-of-the-mill cases, charging for the services of the CMEC sends a bad signal.
	We would prefer HMRC to be responsible for collection. The use of HMRC data raises the question of why a new agency is needed at all. HMRC already collects our taxes and has systems for making calculationsfor example, those used in tax credits. We need to know why the Government feel the need for an additional layer of bureaucracy. Why not let HMRC collect the money that absent parents should be paying for their children? That would be quicker, fairer and simpler.  [ Interruption. ] Judging from the expectoration on the Labour Benches, I think that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) wishes to intervene, and I am happy to give him his opportunity.

Mark Todd: That resounding vote of confidence in HMRC's abilities to handle the collection and sharing out of money to our citizens is deeply encouraging. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's experience of tax credits is far more positive than mine. Would he care to set out the context of his recommendation?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention. My experience of HMRC in relation to the paying out of money under the tax credit system is not good, but my experience of HMRC in relation to the collection of money through the tax system is very good.

David Evennett: Ruthless.

Danny Alexander: It is ruthless, as the hon. Gentleman says. On that basis, the idea has serious merit and should be considered and debated.

Jeremy Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another concern about the involvement of HMRC is that expressed by a number of voluntary bodies, who have no doubt been in contact with him as wellnamely, that HMRC will store its information in several different places? It is important that that information is co-ordinated so that it can be passed on to the CMEC and used for the purposes set out in the Bill. Does he share that concern?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. It might help to support the argument that I have just made, despite the objections of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire.
	It is also important to make sure that the maintenance, once collected by the CMEC, is passed on. In my constituencyI am sure that other hon. Members have had this experiencethere are a large number of cases in which maintenance is collected by the Child Support Agency, as it currently is, but little or nothing is received by the parent with care. Sometimes the money seems to sit with the CSA and is not passed on. We need to make sure that there are mechanisms for passing the money on.
	There is no question in my mind but that enforcement needs to be stronger and much more of a priority. I know that the Minister is taking that seriously. He has expressed that view to me in private. The lack of commitment to enforcement has been one of the great failures of the Child Support Agency. In that respect, the Bill is a mixture of good ideas and gimmicks. The proposal to name and shame on the internet is an utterly pointless gimmick.
	When the Secretary of State raised the question of curfews, I was not sure whether he was rowing back slightly from what was previously proposed. I am dubious about the effectiveness of the measures. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of international experience to suggest that the proposals on passports and, in particular, driving licences can be highly effective. Having those powers in important. There is anecdotal evidence from the United States, for example, that when driving licences are threatened, long queues form the following day at the office where maintenance is paid. That is an important point.

Mark Todd: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but the Chamber is fairly empty. Perhaps his speech is a vehicle for hon. Members to make a few points.
	Surely one of the tests of the Bill will be whether it deals with the most obvious dodges and wheezes that people use to handle their liabilities to the CSA. Such elements as self-employment, running one's own business and operating in a small company in which one knows the proprietor extremely well are critical, as is the actual mechanism of collecting money after an assessment has been made. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will address some of the naked abuses that constituency MPs see all too often?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Some abuses are obvious, and sometimes the parent in care has evidence to show that sheit is most often she, but not alwaysbelieves that dodges or wheezes are being carried out. I do not intend to repeat the good points that have been made about self-employment. I am not completely convinced that the Bill gets the balance right on these matters, but several of its additional proposals on enforcement will help to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies. For example, there will be a power to seize money directly from bank accounts. However, I wonder why there is no power to seize property.
	A strong system of appeal is needed, whether through the courts or otherwise, that is easy to access and understand. The Bill takes a slightly inconsistent approach because there will be an administrative right of appeal in some cases, while the Government intend to use the courts for others. More consistency would be useful. I have mentioned the competence of the CSA. We will encounter problems unless the new organisation has improved competence. The greater the administrative competence of that organisation, the greater the justification for giving it administrative powers. However, the greater its incompetence and the likelihood of incorrect calculations being made, the more important it will be to have court-based legal safeguards or a clear appeals process. We will make that point strongly in Committee.
	It is utterly shameful that 3.5 billion of outstanding debt remains uncollected. If that debt is written off, the people who have been treated the worst will also get the worst outcome. None of the debt should be written off unless it is specifically found to be uncollectable, rather than statistically determined to be uncollectable, or a parent with care has agreed to a lower figure. More action is needed to collect the arrears and compensation should be paid if the CSA's negligence has contributed to a non-payment.
	We will need more scrutiny of the operations of the future CMEC. The Social Security Advisory Committee might well be in a position to carry out such a role, as it does for other aspects of the benefits system. I hope that such a provision will be added to the Bill. Likewise, the CMEC must account in detail in its annual report for its performance on collecting arrears and enforcing debt recovery.
	We need a child support system that works for those who matter mostthe children of the families affected. Despite the many serious flaws in the Bill, I hope that it will proceed to Committee and that the Government will have an open mind about improving it. If they do not, however, we will not hesitate to vote against it on Third Reading.

David Evennett: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). I wish him and his wife well for their forthcoming event and hope that that all goes extremely well.
	I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Since I returned to the House in May 2005, hundreds of my constituents have visited my constituency surgery, or contacted me by post and e-mail, to comment on and complain about the Child Support Agency, which has been one of the biggest issues in Bexleyheath and Crayford. The problems have been many and varied, and they have often had severe consequences for the people concerned. Bureaucracy and inefficiency have caused my constituents frustration and worse. There have been many failings under the existing system, while bureaucracy and unfairness have caused considerable distress.
	We are all concerned about child poverty; even today, many children in Britain suffer deprivation, and that is unacceptable. Obviously, we want to make sure that children are not deprived of the resources that are necessary if they are to develop and grow satisfactorily. Of course, we also need to consider the taxpayers' interests and the issue of fairness. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State's measured speech, and I agreed with the broad thrust of his remarks. The Bill is generally to be welcomed, and I am broadly supportive of it. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), highlighted the issues extremely well in his excellent speech. He mentioned the aspects that we support, but he also raised issues of concern. Most importantly, he and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, asked whether the Government's aim is attainable through the Bill. Will it work, or is the new body just the CSA mark 3?
	There are still real concerns about the Bill. The Secretary of State talked about change as if his party had not been responsible for the CSA for the past 10 years, and for the problems that occurred. Our concern is that the Bill has been presented as a radical reform, but as currently drafted it promises the same people, the same buildings, andI do not knowperhaps the same computer system. There is very little detail on how the measures will deliver the culture of change that we need, and the change to child maintenance that the Government promised.
	I was in the House in the 1990s when the CSA was established. I was supportive of action and hopeful of success in dealing with the problems that it was set up to solve. I was a supporter in principle, and remain a supporter of the founding principles. Regrettably, the CSA did not get off to a smooth or effective start. It suffered a loss of popular confidence at the very beginning, and it never regained the confidence of the people who depended on it. That has been a matter for regret over the years. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, there have been improvements, and we welcome that, but regrettably there are still huge areas of failure. That is not to be critical of the staff; they are working hard and are doing their very best, but that is no good as an answer to our constituents, who experience problems that include constantly getting letters that say different things, failing to get through on the telephone, and failing to get satisfaction. That is why it is so important that we discuss and debate the issue in detail this afternoon.
	I want to highlight a number of problems that my constituents have experienced. The first relates to compliance. Statistics for my constituency show that partial or non-compliance seems to be going up, and that is worrying; full compliance is down considerably. Some peoplemen, particularlyare just not taking responsibility for their children, and that is totally unacceptable. All of us in the House are in agreement on that. It is not a party-political issue; we are just discussing how we can improve the situation. We want to be constructive. We want to make sure that the Bill is improved, and we want to make sure that when it reaches the statute book, it will determine successful outcomes for applications.
	I must raise the case of one of my constituents, and I would particularly like to draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) on our Front Bench, who will wind up for us. My constituent signed over the equity in his house when his relationship broke up, and he then went on to have another family. The partner who had taken the equity had no wish to accept any more maintenance, but the CSA did not take the equity in the house into account, so the man had to continue to pay, and had considerable financial difficulties. The CSA seemed unable to deal with a situation in which there was a voluntary agreement, and in which the parties wanted no further involvement with the CSA.
	The main problem has been administration. Constituents have come to my surgery with letters, sometimes written on the same date, saying completely different things. People who have the responsibility of bringing up children, which is difficult enough in today's society, do not need the additional problem of getting three letters from the same organisation which say three different things at the same time. I hope that when the new commission is set up, it will be much more robust and efficient, so that the distress and hardship caused to people who are already subject to considerable pressure is not exacerbated, and they are helped.
	The principle underlying the CSA was to help children out of poverty and to help mothers with responsibility for children to fulfil their responsibility without worrying about extra money. I was fortunatemy wife and I were together, yet we found that even with two parents, children were difficult to bring up. With only one parent, it is extremely tough. We want the new system to deal with the problems effectively.
	Sometimes the bureaucratic problem is the failure to get through on the phone or to get any answer at all. That causes considerable frustration.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. One of the problems that our constituents often have in their dealings with the CSA is its lack of responsiveness. There is a system within the CSA for allocating the most difficult cases to the clerical office in Bolton. Has he had the same experience as I have with the office not taking incoming calls? Even by contacting the excellent MP hotline at the CSA, it is impossible to get information back without hugely delaying the case further as it is being dealt with at Bolton, because we cannot get hold of staff directly ourselves.

David Evennett: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. My office has had similar experience. The nub of the issue is to improve communications and get results.
	As I understood it from the Secretary of State, there is to be a new ethos and better administration. I am a little concerned that that will take a long time. I follow the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about phasing in. We all know that IT systems are temperamental, but the IT system at the CSA has been a disaster. I have recently seen examples of payments being calculated quite unreasonably. Even when men have presented the information from their wage packets or salary, the calculations have been wrong because of IT problems. That aspect of the new set-up must be examined closely.
	I welcome the income disregard. That is a positive feature of the measure because it addresses difficulties that have arisen in the past. I am very keen on private arrangements between people to fulfil their responsibilities towards their children if the relationship breaks up or has never got started. An amicable settlement must be best for everybody concerned. Regrettably, that is not always possible, as we have heard from the cases described this afternoon, and an agency is required to help out. The more private arrangements we can encourage, the better, but we will always need a failsafe, even for those who have had private arrangements, when things go wrong.

Mark Todd: One of the tests of the legislation will undoubtedly be the proportion of cases that can be dealt with outside the state's intervention. I have found, as I am sure have other hon. Members, that the mere involvement of the state has often exacerbated the problem. The frustrations of dealing with the CSA and the antagonisms of producing detailed assessments and arguing over them make the situation worse. The further we can get the state to withdraw, except in extremis where it is required, the better it will be.

David Evennett: I endorse that. It encapsulates my passionate belief that there is a place for the state, but where arrangements can be made privately, it is essential that we should encourage that and help to make it happen.
	Child maintenance is obviously a critical factor in supporting child welfare, and our children deserve the best. I shall not go through the facts and figures, because they are well known and on the public record. Children are our future and we must do all that we can to ensure that they are helped, and child maintenance is pivotal in alleviating child poverty. We have already heard about various reports, and Lisa Harker's report Delivering on child poverty points out that 42 per cent. of children in poverty are living in lone-parent families, and that maintenance ought to play a major part in reducing child poverty. That is absolutely the case, and that is why we are looking at the matter so seriously this afternoon.
	I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will take the necessary steps to address the real problems of families under today's system. But as many hon. Members have said, the devil is in the detail and in the implementation. We support the two founding principlesto ensure that children receive a proper and fair maintenance payment, and that there is fairness for the taxpayer. I look forward to seeing how the Bill is developed in Committee, I hope making it a slightly better Bill. But at this stage, I think that it has qualified support and we look forward to future developments.

deferred division

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the European global navigation satellite system.
	The Ayes were 318, the Noes were 141, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Jeremy Wright: I begin, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), re-enters the Chamber, by welcoming him to his old job this afternoon. He has been involved with the preliminary reforms of the CSA, and I am pleased that he will be able to carry forward further reform. I also want to join in the consensus that there has been across the House in agreeing that that reform was absolutely necessary, and that we could not simply proceed with the situation that we were in, with a failing agency that was not doing the job that it needed to do for a variety of families and children in our society.
	I welcome the Bill's general thrust towards encouraging more voluntary maintenance agreements. Other hon. Members have spoken on this, and it is important to say that this is the way in which we should wish to encourage parents to resolve child maintenance issues. If the state does not have to be involved, it should not be.
	It is important also that we encourage those voluntary maintenance agreements in whatever context we can. It is worth remembering that a number of parents who are separating will be in the process of forming their arrangements at or near courts. Not every separating couple find themselves at court, but many do, so it is sensible to encourage parents who are at court in any event, resolving a number of other aspects in their lives and for the future of their children, if possible to resolve also the financial aspects of child maintenance while they are in a frame of mind to discuss the future, and if possible, being represented. That is not to say that I advocate going back to the old days where all these matters were resolved by the courts; I do not advocate that, but it would be helpful for those parents already involved with the courts system to be encouraged to engage with a voluntary procedure while they are in that context.
	As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the reality is, whether we like it or not, that in the minds of many parents the issues of access and contact are inextricably bound up with those of financial support. Although it would be wrong for anyone to advocate that we should have a system in which it appeared that access or contact was being bought by financial support, it is also important to recognise that the two issues are connected in the minds of many parents. It is crucial to have a system in which we avoid a situation whereby financial support and contact are put in place in such a way that one can be used in a weapon in the battle over the other. I hope that if we move towards voluntary maintenance agreements, with flexibility in terms of how they can be implemented, we can avoid that situation in as many cases as possible.
	We in this House may say that voluntary maintenance agreements are the way forward and tell parents to get on and make them, but even with a broad measure of cross-party support, it is not as simple as that. We must recognise that in many cases there is a significant imbalance between the two parents in terms of how able they feel to negotiate, to argue their case, and to ensure that at the end of a voluntary negotiation process a fair settlement is reached which benefits the children. I entirely agree that that is our foremost priority. However, because of that potential imbalance in power, it does not necessarily follow that without some assistance parents will end up in a situation whereby the children benefit from such an agreement.
	We have heard about the need for advice and support, which is vital. With that advice and support, we can have confidence, in the vast majority of cases, that a voluntary maintenance agreement is the way forward. I very much support the thrust of the Bill in that sense. However, that advice and support should almost certainly not come, at least directly, from the new agency, CMEC. We must have a system in which even if, as the Bill suggests, CMEC will have the responsibility of commissioning advice and support, there is some distance between it and those delivering advice and support to families. Mediation is always a better way of resolving such situations than resorting to the state through the CSA, CMEC or any other agency, or through the courts. If it can be done by voluntary agreement, it should be. It is vital that parents who are considering an agreement are not deterred from engaging in that process because they thinkthey may well be wrongthat if they were to go to CMEC, engage in an open discussion of their situation, and volunteer information as to their circumstances, CMEC would use that information against one party or another, in a more enforcement-related process, if the agreement broke down at a later date.
	That is not the same as saying that CMEC should not be there in cases where voluntary maintenance agreements broke down. However, it is vital that advice and support come not directly from CMEC but from other agencies that are more trusted in environments where they are relied upon to give impartial advice. That requires far greater involvement of the voluntary sector and many more organisations being involved in the process. Of course, they will require adequate financial support to do that job; I recognise that there will be financial implications. However, if we are to avoid the longer-term expenditure involved in agreements breaking down and CMEC becoming involved in a way that we would not wish it to, it is worth that initial expenditure.
	Let me return to the point about encouraging voluntary agreements and what CMEC can do in that regard. It is important that it should be able to support those arrangements by standing behind them. Several hon. Membersinitially my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose)made the point that there is a big difference between CMEC being enabled to enforce a voluntary agreement and enabled to take an application from square one from a family whose voluntary maintenance agreement has broken down.
	There is little incentive to engage in the voluntary maintenance agreement process for someone who thinks that all the hard work will come to nothing if the agreement breaks down. We should have a system that allows CMEC to take on part of the process whereby the agreement was reached, and provides for enforcement at least partly on that basis. Although the agreement would not remain voluntary, such a system would not only reduce CMEC's work load, and therefore its expensean eminently desirable aimbut make families more likely to engage in the voluntary agreement process.
	Voluntary agreements are not only good for the families, although that is the most important consideration, but if more separating couples reach a such an agreement, it will leave CMEC much freer to spend more time on the difficult, complex and irreconcilable cases, which require a great deal of time and effort to resolve the situation or, if necessary, to pursue errant partners who are not prepared to fulfil their financial responsibilities.
	When we consider the rest of the Bill and all the powers that CMEC can exercise, it is important to acknowledge that, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), providing the powers is only half the story. The other half is ensuring that the commission can exercise them. It needs the time, personnel and resources to exercise them, or having them in the Bill will do no family any good.
	I should be grateful for clarification of a specific point, which the Secretary of State may have covered but about which I was not clear. The Bill grants four specific powers to CMEC when a partner does not provide financial assistance and the commission cannot persuade that person to do so. At the top of the scale is imprisonment, followed by a curfew, deprivation of a driving licence and deprivation of a passport. The Bill appears to say that CMEC can make the order directly for deprivation of a passport. In the case of the other three, CMEC must go to court to obtain an order. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary explained the logic behind that discrepancy.
	As I said, I may have heard the Secretary of State confirm that the court should be the deciding agency for all four powers. However, if that is not the case, I should be grateful for an explanation. It gives me some cause for concern, because all four appear to be fairly significant punitive powers for the court and, in one case, the commission. I believe that they should all be exercised through a court-related process rather than directly on the commission's application and decision.
	It is entirely sensible that the new commission should have the power, when appropriate, to examine the financial circumstances of cases that have been outstanding for some time and decide that it would make sense to accept a lesser figure than the total outstanding arrears. However, I would like reassurance that, if the commission is prepared to make that sort of decision, it will not do so without involving the parent with care. It would be wrong of the commission to appear to make decisions for administrative convenience without the agreement of the parent with care, who will suffer the financial burden of the full amount not being collected. Although I acknowledge the good sense of having such a power available, I would be grateful for reassurance that, when it is used, the parent with care will be fully involved and invited to give consent to the action before it is taken.
	For all of us who have experienced many constituency cases in which the CSA has not done the job that we would wish it to doand that its staff wish that they could have donethe reason is often that, despite detailed, accurate and extensive information from the parent with care about the non-resident parent who is absent and has either disappeared off the face of the earth or been found, the latter's income is not accurately reassessed to ensure that the appropriate amounts are being paid.
	If we are all to assure our constituents that CMEC will do a better job than the CSA, we need not only to demonstrate to them that the Bill provides the new commission with more powers to do the things that they want it to, but to ensure that when they call CMEChopefully, they will be able to get through on the phoneto communicate information, which is often verified independently rather than simply on their say-so, action will be taken in response to it. The powers in the Bill must be used when constituents have provided the requisite information.
	In common with other hon. Members, I give the Bill a qualified welcome. Some matters within it need clarification. It is regrettable when, as so often, a great deal of the important nuts and bolts of legislation are dealt with through regulation after the fact. It would be helpful if we heard further detail from the Minister in Committee about how the regulations can be expected to operate. Be that as it may, and even if we can resolve all the issues relating to the wording and associated regulations, we will still want some reassurance that the mechanisms and set-up at CMEC will allow it to be rather more effective than its predecessor.

Hywel Williams: May I begin by welcoming the Front-Bench speakers to their respective posts? I have to say that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) reminded me, we are old lags in this matter, having laboured in pensions and benefits since we were elected in 2001. We have the scars on our backs to prove it.
	I welcome the Government's intention to put the Child Support Agency out of its miseryor possibly reform it yet again. That has been long expected and long hoped for. As many others have observed, the agency that was set up long ago in the 1990s had the fundamental flaw of appearing to be a benefit-recovery agency rather than a means of ensuring that parents with care had adequate incomes or, of equal importance, that non-resident parents made a proper contribution. It is right that the responsibility is shouldered by the people who should shoulder it. Unfortunately, there is still a pressing need to improve the incomes of parents with care, particularly single parents.
	Child poverty has come down, which is greatly to be welcomed. The latest figures for Wales, relating to 2004-05, show that progress has been stalledmomentarily, one hopes. According to Save the Children, about 28 per cent. of children in Wales180,000 childrenare still living in poverty. Many of those children live in single parent households or those where there has been a divorce. If we want to achieve or even better the Government's target of halving child poverty by 2010 or of eradicating it by 2020, we need to take great strides. I hope that the Bill will go some way in that direction. In that respect, I certainly wish it well.
	Every hon. Member will have their own tales of woe arising from the current arrangements. Many of mine are due to the nature of the local economy. As has already been pointed out, problems often arise when people are self-employed. The private economy of my constituency is overwhelmingly made up of self-employed sole traders or partnerships where the financial arrangements are not always very clear. To be frank, they are easily hidden.
	Some cases are very straightforwardI shall not go into the detail of all my constituency casesand some inexplicable in small communities. In one recent case, a mother asked me how it was that the fatherhe is a builderwas able to build a new house with his new partner and drive around in a new 4x4, while paying nothing off his arrears. Without the proper information, the CSA was apparently powerless to help. In another case, a father wants to migrate to the new mark 2 system, but the CSA says that he cannot. He fears that he might have to default, although in the past he has always fully co-operated with the CSA.
	One danger that must be guarded against is the new agency simply reaching for the low-hanging fruit. In the past, there has been a danger that the obvious casesthe people who co-operate and who are prepared to provide financial informationare addressed, while the classic example of the man who has run away to work on the rigs is never pursued, because it is a good deal easier to tick the box and meet the target by reaching for the low-hanging fruit instead.
	Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus and I were quietly discussing whether all the old cases would eventually migrate to the new system, or whether we would have three systems running at the same time. The latter could be a recipe not only for great difficulty but for strong feelings among those who felt disadvantaged by not being able to move to the new system.
	We have all seen extremely complicated cases, and I am slightly reluctant to go into this one, but I want to give the House an idea of the measure of complexity that can be involved. A disabled father, a constituent of mine, is unable to take his disabled son overnight because of the son's disruptive behaviour. The parents have therefore agreed that that should not happen, but the mother is on benefit, so the CSA has said that the father has to make payments. They have no choice; that is the administrative law. The father claims that he cannot afford to pay, because of a loss of income arising from his disability, and he says that he will have to give up his work. There is an element of tragedy in this case, because the parents are co-operating to the best of their ability, but this man, who has a disability but is managing to struggle on, will have to give up work.
	I do not want to go into too many cases, but another pertinent one involves the growing trend towards 50:50 shared care. How will the agency deal with such situations? Some parents will be able to organise such arrangements in an amicable way, and that is all well and good. However, there have also been a great many disputes, and they are often expressed in terms of money. We must be careful when addressing the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), when he appeared to suggest that access might be linked to payments. That would be a dangerous route to travel, and we must think carefully before we head in that direction.
	I have referred to some of the problems relating to the CSA, but I do not blame the staff in any way. They have always been courteous and done their best, as far as I am concerned. I want to pay tribute to them and, in particular, to the Welsh language unit, which is based in Birkenhead. On a lighter note, I suggest that hon. Members take on Welsh-speaking case workers, because it is very easy to get through to the Welsh language unit, which provides a Rolls-Royce service. I commend that course of action to the House. On a serious note, the position of the staff in the new agency must be protected and safeguarded, because I know that the CSA has had some concerns in that regard.
	Members of the Scottish National party and I welcome the principles of the Bill, including the new responsibilities for both parentsI emphasise both. I have always been uneasy with the present arrangement in which the father's responsibility is almost always expressed in monetary terms, as though all that the father needed to do was pay the money. That has not led to good parenting in many cases, and we need to move towards encouraging good parenting by the system and by the state.
	If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were here now, I am sure that he would be on his feet extolling the virtues of working with parents to improve the quality of their parenting. Unfortunately, I fear that because of the way in which the system has worked we have produced a generation of children who have seen parental relationships and responsibilities reduced to vicious squabbles over money, and who might now believe that that is all it was about. I fear that some of that process of degeneration has been fuelled by the present system, and I certainly hope that the new arrangements will be part of the solution.

Andrew Selous: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Australian CSA practice of helping long-distance parenting, whereby the non-resident parent can maintain their tremendously important bond with their child while paying maintenance? Does he think that it might be useful for CMEC to go down that route?

Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I certainly hope that CMEC will provide an active and creative advice service, rather than one that is simply concerned with the nuts and bolts of money. Many parents live at opposite ends of the country, but there are many ways in which that can be addressed. For example, long-distance computer communication via e-mail should be considered as a means of ensuring that the relationship between the parent who does not have care and the child is maintained.
	Like other Members who have spoken, I am very much in favour of parents reaching voluntary agreements without going through CMEC. Citizens advice bureaux, Cymorth I FenywodWomen's Aid in Walesand End Child Poverty Network Cymru point out that we must take seriously the danger of non-resident fathers in particular taking the opportunity to pressure their former partners not to resort to advice and guidance from the new agency and to steer clear of CMEC. Some women may have been in abusive relationships and still be under physical and emotional pressure from their former partners. We must guard against that possible unintended consequence.
	I want advice and guidance to be available as locally as possible. Parents going through a divorce might not be in a position to travel tens or even hundreds of miles to seek advice from the agency. I represent a rural area and I am unconvinced that the matter is being taken seriously enough. Government offices have been closed in my area, and services have been moved 70 or 80 miles to towns such as Wrexham. A long-distance computer camera system is being installed in the west of my constituency to deal with the new passport system. I do not want to pursue that point, but I hope that the advice service will be provided as locally as possible.
	I am also concerned that the intention to use gross earnings for one year might not enable CMEC to take into account variations in earnings throughout the year, which can have disastrous effects on parents' incomes. Many of my constituents work in the holiday industry and make little money in the winter and quite a lot in the summer. In the past, that affected the dates when people applied for disability living allowance or attendance allowance. Ice-cream salesmen would apply for attendance allowance in February, when their incomes were low. There are also huge variations in the incomes of others who are self-employed.
	Let me briefly return to my concern about split carethe 50:50 situation that I alluded to earlierwhich can complicate otherwise straightforward arrangements. I came across one case in which people literally counted the days: they worked out how many nights the child had stayed for, and when the total came to half of 365my arithmetic does not extend that farthe parent with care changed. I do not want us to go down that route, where parents look not at the quality of care but whether distortions might cost them hundreds or thousands of pounds.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Angus is anxious that I raise a point about fee charging. The Law Society in Scotland has suggested that the ability to charge fees might be postponed until the standard of service reaches a certain level. It is saying that, if we take the view that the CSA's service has not been acceptable, let us wait and see how the new body performs before we start charging for a service that might not be fully up to standard.
	The Bill is not a perfect solution by any meansthere will never be a perfect solution in cases where parents are splitting up; there will always be problemsand I hope that it will be improved in Committee. Perhaps the arrangements already available in Scotland, which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, can be built on. Of course, our overriding aim must be to make sure that this time the money goes to the children.
	I want to refer briefly to the mesothelioma proposals. I have some experience in this regard. Some Members might recall that the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced because of the difficulties experienced by some of my constituents and others in the north Wales slate industry, and in the jute industry in Dundee. The previous employers had gone bankrupt or out of business, and there was literally nobody to sue. People could not sue for the compensation that they were due, and the then Government eventually stepped in and introduced the 1979 Act. I am therefore very pleased that this Government are addressing the mesothelioma issue through this Bill.
	Many of the slate workers in my constituency who were exposed to the danger of slate dust went to work in the very large Ferodo factory that opened outside Caernarvon. It was part of the Turner and Newall group, and it made brake linings out of asbestos. So some of the workers who had been exposed to slate dust went to work in a factory where asbestos was being used. I am very pleased that particular arrangements have been made in respect of Turner and Newall workersor Federal-Mogul workers, as they now are. If the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) were here, he would doubtless want to contribute, and I pay generous tribute to his efforts on behalf of workers in his constituency and in mine. The Bill's proposals on mesothelioma are therefore very welcome.
	To end on a chilling note, mesothelioma is a dreadful disease. It is very quickpeople live for months only. Before I was elected, I went to a coroner's court with a widow for the results of a post mortem on her husband, which eventually proved that he did have slate dust. She eventually got compensationbut that, of course, was after he had died. I welcome the possibility that, under the new mesothelioma proposals, such people will very quickly get the compensation that they deserve.

John Barrett: This is a very serious debate. Many people have waited far too long to discover what is to replace the Child Support Agency. We have heard today about individual and more general cases involving the CSA from every Member who has spoken todayfrom Members in all parts of the House. We all agree that the reduction of child poverty is a key issue, but even in relatively affluent constituencies such as mine, where child poverty certainly exists in pockets, we need to provide a fair deal for those whose ex-partners have decided not to deliver on their responsibility to look after their children. Often, it is the wife who is the carer, and we must ensure that such people get a fair deal in bringing up their children.
	Tackling evasive non-resident parents, particularly self-employed non-resident parents, in respect of whom there are specific problems, is also a key aspect of the Bill. The resident parentoften, it is the mothermay have worked in their ex-partner's business, particularly if it is a small business, and knows exactly what the income of her ex-partner is. When that ex-partner says that he now lives on 100 a week, receiving a very low assessment from the CSA, the resident parent will frequently say that he has bought a new car, built a new house or has a new partner, and is living fairly high on the hog. In many cases, the problem is not that the regulations are not in place, but that no action has been taking using the existing powers.
	Voluntary arrangements are to be encouraged, and communication with other Government Departments is vital. I dealt with a case of a father who was telling the CSA that he had a very low income and could not possibly pay a reasonable amount to look after his children, while he was telling the Home Office how well-off he was because he wanted to sponsor a potential new wife who was coming into the country.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who asked, Why not use Revenue and Customs to collect the money through the taxation system? HMRC is ruthless in the way in which it collects income tax, and it is collecting the money, not distributing it, that is usually the problem. If that could be covered using an existing department, it would be one way forward.
	It is easy to forget that most parents are interested in the welfare of their children, whether or not their relationship survivesbut sadly there are some who are not. People must be allowed to put a voluntary agreement in place if they can. Before I was a Member, there was a case in my constituency where a young father of two had come to a voluntary agreement with his ex-partner. He was being hounded by the CSA, and in the end, the CSA letters were found along with his documents after he had committed suicide. It is not just a question of sorting out the financial needs of families. These are often families whose entire lives are falling apart; the marriage has fallen apart, and there are financial problems and concerns about the welfare of the children.
	If the new Secretary of State can deliver a solution to the victims of the CSA, he will find agreement on both sides of the House. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position, as well as Opposition spokesmen including my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
	I intervened on the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) to point out that the CSA spends approximately 1 for every 1.85 it collects. If ever we needed evidence of why it is time for a change, that is it. That is one of the worst ratios of any country in the world. The CSA long ago abandoned the new scheme's original targets of clearing applications within six weeks. The average clearance time now for new cases is close to six months.
	The bottom line for any system of child support is whether the money is getting to the children. In this respect the current system has an unenviable record. In 1990, under the old court system, the typical maintenance award was in the region of 20. Fifteen years later, it is 21 per week, despite a considerable rise in the costs of bringing up children.
	One issue that I shall touch on is the use of the IT system within the CSA. Some time ago, it came to my attention that the existing IT systemmuch maligned, with IT operators accepting the blame for being unable to transfer enough cases to the new systemwas being blamed as the bottleneck holding up cases. But I was informed that the IT system was not the cause of the problem, but that those dealing with it were prepared to accept the blame because they had a number of other IT contracts with the Government.
	One task for the new Secretary of State is to find out whether the IT system is really a problem, or whether EDS is well able to deliver corrections to the IT system but cannot because it has been told that the work that a smoothly running IT system would produce would require more staff. We have heard about staff cuts in the CSA. I have visited hard-working CSA staff in their offices and seen them do their best, often while being the victims of verbal abuse on the telephone. I am not blaming the staff, and I hope that in the new system, the staff get the back-up and the IT system that they deserve, and that the mothers get the money they deserve to spend on the children, whose welfare is all-important.
	There has been much talk of change and a new approach to politics this week. However, I doubt that many hon. Members will disagree with me when I say that if ever there was a policy area in which change is most urgently needed, it is the system of child support. Ten years of this Government have been accompanied by 10 years of child support chaos. We have said goodbye to a Prime Minister, but the problem of the CSA and its replacement will prove more enduring, unless the new Government take the bold steps necessary.
	In my six years in this place, I have taken part in half a dozen debates on the CSA and I have needed to trigger such debates in Westminster Hall on more than one occasion. When I looked back through  Hansard I was disappointed to see that I had to make the same arguments and raise the same concerns year after year. I would like to believe that that says less about those debates and more about the lack of action by the Government. It is a scandal that some of my constituents have had to wait for so long for the Government to take meaningful action in that area. I am also disconsolate at the thought that even if the new system that the Bill will introduce works as the Secretary of State claims it will, it will not be up and running until 2010.
	I was not in this place in 1991, but I know that there was cross-party support for the Child Support Act 1991. I would love to say that today's Bill will be given the same warm welcome across the Chamber, but I for one have several real concerns about the proposals. Other hon. Members have outlined the scale of the failure in the CSA, but it is difficult to overstate how serious the challenge is for any new system. Some 38,000 Scots are waiting for payments and some 3.5 billion in maintenance remains uncollected, with 2 billion written off as uncollectable. That is not the Government's debt to write off. Parents are due that money, and should be able to take action to recover what they can through the courts if it is written off by the Government. Less than half of the non-resident parents who made a payment in the last quarter are paying the full amount they owe and, in spite of the ongoing problems at the CSA, staff numbers have been cut.
	Until recently, Ministers were still talking about dealing with the problems in the agency and saying that they could get it on a stable footing. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that there is no use in steadying a sinking ship. While I welcome the belated decision to scrap the old agency, we must ensure that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is not merely a rehash of the CSA. We need real root-and-branch reform at every level, and I would contend that the jury is still out on whether that is what the Bill will provide. I echo the concerns of the National Association for Child Support Action, which rightly pointed out that if CMEC is to manage existing cases, and operate with existing CSA staff and IT systems, it is difficult to understand how it can be considered a radical departure from the old system.
	Perhaps the biggest immediate hurdle that the CSA has to overcome is the perception that it is a toothless and failing agency that is not taken seriously by parentsthe very parents who often owe substantial arrears towards the welfare of their children. The recent report by the Work and Pensions Committee stated that it was
	difficult to exaggerate the CSA's low reputation
	although some hon. Members have tried their best this afternoon. I am sure that every Member's weekly surgery appointments will demonstrate the scale of the mistrust and underline the challenge of winning the hearts and minds of parents wronged by the current system. To restore that shattered reputation, we will need far more than tinkering change. We need wholesale replacement of one of the most disastrous organisations in modern British political history.
	Other hon. Members have dealt with the fine detail of many aspects of the Bill already, so I will keep my own comments brief and focus on several areas of particular concern to my constituents. A key reason why the agency is seen as toothless is that it has placed far too little emphasis on compliance and too rarely uses middle-order steps to ensure regular payments. Currently, there is little confidence that the CSA will pursue non-compliant parents, and if maintenance is not being paid, the parent with care has to make numerous complaints. Even then, the agency may not deliver effective enforcement action. Many of us will have heard at first hand from mothers about why they have had to act as detectives to prove that their ex-partners have higher incomes than have been declared. At the same time, however, the agency will often take the word of the non-paying father as gospel.
	In that regard, I am pleased that some new measures to increase collection are being introduced, such as the use of deductions from earnings. However, I caution that the problem with enforcement has had less to do with the CSA's lack of powers than with its failure to use them. I hope that the new structure will change that, but I am not convinced that the measures in the Bill will fix the problem. As I said, the jury is still out.
	The principles guiding the changes look good, but I share the concerns of those who feel that we have been given insufficient detail about how the changes will be achieved. With the best will in the world, measures such as removal of passports and driving licences will do nothing to deal with the fundamental problems that dogged the previous organisation from the start.
	We all agree that a truly child-centred policy must look beyond merely enforcing the financial obligations of non-resident parents and do much more to encourage the involvement of both parents in their children's upbringing. In that regard, I welcome the Government's recognition that there should be no barriers preventing parents from coming to their own, mutually agreeable, arrangements for child support. However, if such agreements could be reached in every case, the Government would not need to get involved in child support at all. As that is clearly not the case, I seek assurances from the Minister today that parents with care must have a clear choice to go to CMEC if that is what they want to do, without being pushed into making voluntary arrangements that are unsatisfactoryto them, or in respect of the child. In particular, I hope that the Minister will say what help and advice will be given to parents before a decision about whether to adopt a private arrangement is made. Also, if the agreement breaks down, CMEC must be ready, able and accessible, so that it can help sort the problem out.
	Various Scottish Members have mentioned the key problems that exist in Scotland. However, I think that I am the only Scottish Member here today who has not been briefed by the Law Society of Scotland on that topic, so I shall not try to repeat the details that have been given already.
	Another major problem is that the current system is clearly unable to cope with the volume and complexity of its work load, while the communication with the Inland Revenue that is crucial for accurate assessments has been very poor in the past. I am pleased that there is to be a greater role for the Revenue in that respect, but I am concerned that the workload will remain unmanageable unless the system is simplified.. Simplicity is vital if maintenance calculations are to be made quickly and reliably.
	I am pleased that the Bill recognises the problem of calculating income when the non-resident parent is self-employed, but I have yet to be convinced that the new measures will close the loopholes currently being exploited. There has been a particular problem where the ex-partner is self-employed, and it is difficult to verify profits and income independently. A case that I took up last year involved an ex-husband who said that his income was around 100 a week. The CSA calculated maintenance on that basis, but anyone who looked closely at that man's lifestyle would see that it simply could not be supported on 100 a week.
	Any basic investigation by the CSA would have discovered that, but none took place. I remain unconvinced that the measures outlined in this Bill will put a stop to fathers avoiding supporting their children by using clever accounting techniques. It is therefore vital that information-gathering powers for the new organisation be improved, so that access to information held by other arms of Government and other organisations, such as banks and credit agencies, can be made easier.
	Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about the problems that any new handover will bring. We are still waiting for some old cases to transfer to the current system, which presents us with the ridiculous prospect that when the new system is launched, three entirely different child support systems could be in operation at the same time. Like other Members, I seek assurances from the Minister that that will not happen.
	The 2006 National Audit Office report said:
	The Child Support Reforms have failed to deliver the improvements in customer service and administrative efficiency, which might have been expected from the much-needed new rules.
	There is much still to be done to ensure that we shall not be saying precisely the same thing about this Bill in the years to come.

Maria Miller: We have, I fear, heard from Members on both sides of the House a catalogue of concern caused by the Government's failure after 10 years in power to put in place a child maintenance system that works. A total of 1.4 million families are caught in the current failing system; it costs 465 million a year to run the Child Support Agency, yet fewer than one in three eligible families receive any payment at all. Outstanding debt of 3.5 billion continues to mount by 20 million every month. Some of the comments we have heard this afternoon highlighted the results of those failures.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) identified a number of points, especially the cost of recovery of child support, on which he talked in some detail. He also noted the aspects of the Bill about which he hopes to hear more in Committee; for example, the importance of private agreements in driving the culture of change that the Government have talked about. He shares my hope that more detail about that element will be forthcoming in Committee.
	I want to touch on some of the hon. Gentleman's points about mesothelioma, although I shall refer to the subject later in my speech. He spoke with great passion about the tragic situation faced by mesothelioma sufferers and the magnitude of the problems of exposure to asbestos and the resulting illnesses. He stressed the importance of the Bill's provisions on changes to payments and of the need to ensure that they are made quickly in such cases. The House should pay tribute to the tremendous work he does in the all-party group on the issue.
	Other contributions picked up on elements that we shall debate with the Minister in more detail in Committee. I welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) to his new post, and hope that I pronounced the name of his constituency correctly. On behalf of my party, I send our best wishes to him and his wife on their impending new arrival.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted the importance of collecting arrears and noted the lack of any mention in the Secretary of State's speech of the priority it will be given under the new system. We, too, are concerned about the subject, because collecting arrears is of great import to parents already trapped in the system, so we hope that we can call on the hon. Gentleman's support in Committee for amendments to ensure that parents with care are fully involved in any write-off and that no unilateral decisions on those issues are taken by the Government. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the differences between the Scottish and English systems. He and his colleagues will obviously have much to add on that subject and I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts in Committee. He made a rather more controversial point when he expressed his party's view that the collection and passing on of maintenance might be carried out not by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but by Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue. That may be a somewhat ambitious role for HMRC, given some of its current problems, but we look forward to hearing more about how the hon. Gentleman would make that proposal work in an amendment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) talked eloquently about the problems faced by his constituents, particularly as a result of the increase of non-compliance, which has caused him much concern. He works hard on behalf of his constituents to help to alleviate those problems. He also expressed concern about the continuing failure of the existing system and pointed out that assessments do not reflect the reality of people's individual arrangements. That is an important point, given the fact that the Government intend to push forward changes in enforcement before they make changes in the assessment procedure. When the Minister winds up, will he allay my concerns and explain how the two issues could be better linked? By making changes in enforcement before there are changes in assessment, he could cause further problems for people who may not have received an accurate assessment in the first place. Perhaps he could allay our fears by talking about the current system's level of accuracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said that the devil is in the detail and he was absolutely right; all of us should have that attitude in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), who also made a good contribution, talked about the role of courts and mediation, which no other Member touched on. He mentioned the importance of ensuring that financial support is not used as a weapon to stop contact between parents and their children. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) discussed the importance of ongoing contact and the enduring responsibilities of parenthood. Again, I hope that we can discuss such issues in more detail.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) spoke well about the importance of the Bill in reducing poverty and the problems of assessing the self-employed; I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts in Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) also mentioned assessment problems for the self-employed; perhaps the Minister will pick the issue up in his closing remarks. Under the current system, the self-employed could be reassessed if their income varied by plus or minus 25 per cent.; there could regularly be such changes in the incomes of the self-employed, particularly for those in seasonal occupations in the holiday industry, which has been mentioned.
	In opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would provide a more effective and efficient system. I am sorry, but hon. Members could be forgiven for feeling that they had heard such promises before. Almost exactly eight years ago, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, now Chancellor, introduced the 1999 Child Support Agency White Paper. He said:
	We are putting the confidence back into child support, replacing complexity with simplicity, replacing delay with quick and accurate decisions, and replacing bureaucracy with a high-quality customer service...We are delivering for children and putting their needs first.[ Official Report, 1 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 435.]
	Those are fine words, but we are here today because of the failure of that set of Government reforms. The system was so flawed that at the moment more than one in three non-resident parents simply do not bother to pay their maintenance. The computer system that was developed still does not work properly; indeed, in the past 12 months, there has been a doubling in the number of maintenance cases that have to be dealt with manually, because the computer system simply cannot cope. Eight years on, 750,000 cases are still on the Child Support Agency system. There are more cases on the old system than on the new scheme.
	A number of hon. Members have referred to the National Audit Office's damning indictment of the Government and the fact that despite 539 million of investment, nothing has improved the Child Support Agency's performance. The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said that the new proposals before the House today were a fundamental redesign; the Secretary of State himself said that the new proposals were driving a change in culture. The reform has certainly been presented as radical, but when we read the Bill, we see that the similarities are greater than the differences. If there is a fundamental redesign, it is not in the Bill. Sir David Henshaw, commissioned by the Government to put forward a vision for the future of child support, said that
	the Child Support Agency as it stands is not capable of the radical shift in business model, culture and efficiency...A new organisation should be set up.
	He went on to say that a redesign of the system
	must not be contaminated with previous failings.
	Why are the Government not listening to what Sir David Henshaw talked about in his recommendations? Henshaw raised many issues that the Government have failed to cover in any detail in the Bill.
	The Government's position on reform has been somewhat uncertain in recent years and perhaps that is why we feel that the lack of detail in the Bill is so concerning. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), as recently as January 2006, rejected the idea of simply shutting the Child Support Agency down. He said:
	Simply scrapping it or closing it down might look attractive in terms of dealing with some of its problems, but it would only create another heap of problems that someone else would have to pick up. It is, in fact, a simplistic solution to suggest that the only thing to do is shut it down.[ Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 10.]
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)the Secretary of State before lastrequested a plan for the wholesale redesign of the present system, which was put forward by the chief executive. That was then scrapped by the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furnessthe next Secretary of Stateand Sir David Henshaw was brought in. Now the Government are advocating a move towards more voluntary agreements, although there is precious little detail in the Bill. That idea was roundly rejected by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)who made some excellent contributions to the debate earlierwhen he was Minister for Welfare Reform. So a lot of contrary views have been expressed.
	We want to see more detail in the Bill so that the culture change that has been talked about will be driven through and have results for families and children in all our constituencies. We fear that the Bill is too simplistic. Far more detail needs to be woven in in Committee to ensure that parents are supported to take responsibility for their child's maintenance. It is clear from the debate today that the Government cannot let this be yet another missed opportunity to establish a maintenance system that works, and we will work with them to ensure that that does not happen.
	Child maintenance is a critical factor in supporting child welfare and we have no option but to get our child maintenance system right. Each and every year, between 150,000 and 200,000 couples with children separate. Indeed, 15 per cent. of children never live with both their parents and more than 1 million children in lone parent households live in poverty. Effective maintenance is crucial and we will do all we can to support the Bill to be better at providing an effective maintenance structure.
	Members have already talked about the importance of the Bill in terms of alleviating child poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford cited Lisa Harker's report, which pointed out that 42 per cent. of children in poverty are living in lone parent families and that maintenance ought to play a much greater role in reducing child poverty. However, as I am sure the Minister is aware, under the present system just one in five lone parents receives maintenance payments. The Secretary of State himself pointed out that child maintenance makes a paltry contribution to reducing child poverty in this country. That is in contrast to other countriesnot just countries in northern Europe, but Austria and Switzerland as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said that this is not a time to sit back and bask in consensus. Although we welcome the Government's proposals to put in place some more building blocks to improve the current system, we believe that we need to move further. We support parents taking responsibility. We welcome the decision to scrap the CSA, but we need to make sure that the new organisation is not contaminated by previous failure. We welcome the innovative idea of CMEC being a commissioner of services, but we need to see the flesh on the bones of that idea and that detail is not currently in the Bill.
	We welcome the move to a more robust form of assessment, based on previous years' income and using HMRC data, but the transition to the new system for those suffering as a result of the current chaos is just too slow. Why cannot we fast-track the change in assessment, as my hon. Friend suggested? We also agree that effective enforcement is an important part of creating a new culture, but if faith is truly to be restored in the child maintenance system, we need to make sure that enforcement goes hand in hand with a more reliable and accurate assessment system.
	The Bill contains precious little detail on many of the areas that hon. Members have raised today. In Committee, we will press for more detail from the Government. It is important that we do not just wait for regulations to come through. For example, we need more detail about how we will support private agreements to be more effective, rather than just one-week wonders. Such concern has been raised by not only Conservative Members, but the Work and Pensions Committee, the National Council for One Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group. I hope that the Minister will take the point seriously and give us his considered and detailed views in Committee on how such agreements will work.
	The repeal of section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 will mean that it will no longer be mandatory for those on benefits to apply to the CSA. As other hon. Members have asked, is there a need to link the repeal of the section to ensuring that additional information and support will be available for families so that they can make their own private agreements? Without such a link and a change to the level of disregard prior to the repeal, some families might fall through the child maintenance net, so will the Minister reassure us on that matter?
	At the heart of the Bill is the Government's desire for parents to take more responsibility. Will that principle extend to the recovery of arrears? The Government are sidestepping in the Bill the question of charging fees for making agreements. In Committee, we will need to hear about how that will be handled.
	All these matters cannot be left to regulations, so we will need a full debate on them in Committee. I hope that the Government will come forward with draft regulations or amendments to the Bill before that stage.
	The provisions that will change the way in which mesothelioma will be dealt with are the other important element of the Bill. There is no cure for that cruel and distressing disease, about which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke in depth. We will be pressing the Government for more details on their intentions because, as is the case for so much of the Bill, a great deal will be laid down in regulations. Again, we hope that the Government will publish draft regulations so that we can discuss them in detail in Committee.
	There is much work to be done in Committee to take the Bill forward so that it brings about the culture change that is needed to ensure that children in this country receive the support that they need from their parents throughout childhood. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, the family is created when the child is born. Whatever happens to the relationship between parents, their family responsibilities persist. The Bill needs to support families to take responsibility for giving children the support that they need throughout their childhood to help to ensure that they get the start in life that they deserve.

James Plaskitt: We have had a thoughtful debateI am inclined to say that it was something of a specialist debateduring which the Bill has received broad general support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which I welcome. The Government accept that we have come to the end of a road on which we all embarked in 1990 with the White Paper that heralded the introduction of the Child Support Agency. The agency was brought into being because of the failures of the previous court-based arrangements. It is worth remembering that the White Paper referred to that court system as
	fragmented, uncertain in its results, slow and ineffective.
	It continued:
	In a great many instances, the maintenance awarded is not paid or the payments fall into arrears.
	Since then, successive Governments have tried to tackle the issue of securing child maintenance via the CSA. As we all know, there were valid reasons for embarking on such a route in the first place. There have been valiant attempts to try to make the system work. However, we have come to the view that the system is fundamentally flawed. Despite the fact that billions of pounds in maintenance have been collected by the CSA, and despite the fact that more than 650,000 children are currently being supported with maintenance payments as a result of the CSA, confidence in the agency has been lost. That is why we came to the conclusion that a new approach was necessary.
	The main lesson learned by all of us is that the CSA approach was just too complex. The agency was being asked to do too much: it was asked to be the calculator, the adjudicator, the administrator and the enforcer. Indeed, as the National Audit Office concluded in 2006:
	With hindsight, the Agency was never structured in a way that would enable the policy to be delivered cost effectively.
	Since taking the decision in 2006 to make a fresh start, we have moved quickly. We have been strongly supported by the staff in the existing agency who, above all else, want to be part of a successful child support system.
	The new start envisaged by the Bill has today been widely welcomed by Members across the House, and by virtually all the stakeholders who have commented on the proposals so far. I cannot improve on the observations of the Child Poverty Action Group, which said:
	the Bill provides an important opportunity to improve the lives of children and families.
	That is exactly so.
	I turn to the main points raised in this afternoon's debate. To begin with the issues raised by the Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) rightly spoke of the frustration felt by many parents with care, and indeed by some non-resident parents, as a result of the problems with the agency. I was pleased that he moved on to say that the Conservatives share our aspirations for the Bill. He said that, at the moment, it is too easy for too many parents to evade their responsibilities, but that is why the Bill envisages significant new enforcement powers. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) asked about those powers, which are very important. There are new powers to give us means of accessing accounts, powers relating to financial institutions, powers to notify credit reference agenciesthat can have a significant impact, particularly on self-employed peopleand, of course, powers giving access to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs income records. All those measures will help us to prevent people from evading their responsibilities.
	It was disappointing when the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell tried to suggest that there had been 10 years of neglect, and that disappointment was made obvious by other Members who spoke. There was, of course, a programme of improvements in 2000, which was implemented in 2003, and which the Conservative Front Benchers of the time supported. More recently, we introduced the operational improvement plan, which, again, was welcomed by the Opposition Front Benchers. It has been in operation for only a year, but already 58,000 more children receive maintenance payments, and the backlog of uncleared cases is down by 80,000 since we got going with the plan. It is not the case that there has been 10 years of no effort to try to make the agency work better.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what was different about the envisaged reform. He said that the transfer of the same staff implied that there would not be any difference. That is unreasonable to the staff, who cannot be blamed for the systemic failures in the agency's design and who want to be part of a successful operation. Indeed, it is important to retain their expertise so that they can help us as we go forward with the new operation. He wanted to know about the IT system. A number of fixes are being rolled out right now, and it is important to get that right before the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission assumes all its responsibilities. He wondered why the process was taking some time, but of course we are taking time to ensure that we get it right this time.
	The hon. Gentleman overlooked other measures included in the proposal that show just how different the new system is. I have already spoken about the new powers; we are also introducing new support for voluntary agreements and repealing section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991, which has forced so many people who did not need to use the agency into contact with it. There is a new information platform that we can work from, which includes data-sharing with HMRC, and there will be a wider use of disregard. Those are all fundamental changes.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the voluntary sector, which indeed has an extremely important part to play in helping us deliver the reforms. We are in discussion with the voluntary sector about the evolution of the support and advice services, which will be an important part of the new arrangements.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about the lack of detail at this stage, but if we have learned anything from the experience of the CSA, surely it is the importance of getting the detail right. He will understand that the Bill puts in place the basic architecture. It is crucial in many respects that the commission be allowed to evolve particular ways of doing things in the light of the duties with which it will be charged under the Bill. That is the right way to go, as opposed to the more micro-managed and over-complex approach which bedevilled the agency. We must learn the lessons from the agency. Regulations will be rolled out over 2008 to 2010 before the CMEC becomes fully operational.

Maria Miller: The Minister speaks about the importance of developing an architecture for the commission. I understand that, but one of the basic parts of that architecture is the income disregard. We had a lengthy debate across the House about that because we are all concerned about it. Can the Minister shed a little more light on the work that has been done on that and when the Government will be more forthcoming?

James Plaskitt: There are two main parts to that. The extension of the 10 disregard will come in quite quickly. As is clear from the Bill and everything that we have said, it will be extended to those on old cases. In respect of a higher amount applied across the board, as we said early in the debate it is essential to determine the correct level. That is not a back-of-the-envelope calculation. There are important assessments to be made. There are many dimensionsthe cost of it, the impact on parents with care, the interaction between different levels of disregard, and work incentives. It is a significant change and it is important to get it right. There will be opportunities to discuss that further in Committee.

Danny Alexander: Before the Minister leaves the subject of detail that will be in regulations, can he set out for the record which regulations the Government intend to publish in draft form before the Committee stage?

James Plaskitt: As I have indicated, given that the CMEC comes into being only in 2008 and steadily increases its duties up to 2010 and the transfer process rolls on thereafter, it is important to take time and get the details right. I will not give the hon. Gentleman a precise timetable for the emergence of regulations. It would not be appropriate to do so. I stress that we have all learned the importance of getting the system right. There will be plenty of opportunity in Committee to debate all the aspects that will be subject to regulation.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke began by talking about enforcement and pleaded that we should defer those measures, although she seems to be asking us to go faster in other respects. The enforcement measures are needed now. There are opportunities right now for parents to evade their responsibilities. We all share a concern about that and wish to see effective enforcement measures brought into being as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the increased number of clerical cases and attributed that to IT failures. They are not all down to IT failuresthere are other reasons why some cases become clerical. They are being separately dealt with and we are trying to clear them. In many instances those are the toughest and most complex cases. We have set up a specialist unit to deal with them and we hope that they will be resolved quickly.
	The hon. Lady seemed to suggest that we were not doing what David Henshaw recommended, but we are doing precisely what he recommended. I think that she misinterpreted what I said about not shutting down the CSA. Of course I would not advocate that. It is important always to bear in mind the interests of the children who are being supported by maintenance. I was arguing that simply to close down the CSA and then later introduce something different would leave a yawning gap in the middle, in which children would not be supported. It is important that we move seamlessly from existing systems to new ones without dropping the ball in terms of getting maintenance payments through to children, which is the essence of what we are about.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) is pessimistic. I hope that when he and his wife have had their happy event he will become optimistic, and I congratulate him on that impending news. I am pleased that he supports the principles. He raised concerns about the debt issue, and that is very much a legacy problem. The debt started to accumulate from day one of the CSA and has grown immensely throughout. The Bill deals with what can be done to handle debt better, and there will be an opportunity to negotiate reasonable settlements where there is consent between the parties involved. We are introducing the power to have lump sum deduction orders, which is a means of collecting arrears that we have not had before. The Bill introduces the option of selling debt to private purchasers and we are already beginning to use private debt collectors. However, as he knows, there is no general power of write-off, and nor should there be.
	I appreciate the positive comments that the hon. Gentleman made about the staff who work for the agency. There is a programmed reduction in numbers from the present level, but it simply takes the numbers back to the kind of level that they were at before the operational improvement plan came into being. Once that plan has tidied up many of the legacy problems that it was designed for, the agency should be able to operate on the numbers that it had before. As we move into the new commission-based arrangement we anticipate fewer numbers coming through, and it will be reasonable to expect the opportunity to take staff numbers down further. Precise decisions on that will be for the new commission.

Michael Jabez Foster: I apologise for not being present for much of the debate, but on the question of staff numbers, in my constituency people have been offered assurances that there will be no reduction in total staff. How can the Government follow that assurance if they have delegated responsibility to a non-departmental Government body?

James Plaskitt: As my hon. Friend knows, we have already published staff numbers through to 2008 as part of the Department's existing commitments. Staff will transfer to the new commission with protection under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Neither we nor they can at this point make firm commitments about staffing levels beyond that.
	I was disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is still clinging to his party's proposal that we hand the whole operation over to HMRC. I welcome him to his posthe has had two years as the understudy, and he now has the opportunity to revise the policy. He does not have to be committed to it any longer. I hope that he will think again about handing the whole operation over to HMRC. There are important reasons why that would not be the appropriate route and he knows that that is my and the Government's view. He should bear in mind that in those systems where the child maintenance collection arrangements are operated by the equivalent of HMRC, the system is underwritten at the same time. I have never heard him propose that. I hope that he will have the opportunity now that he is top man on this to have another think about that aspect of Liberal Democrat policy.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed powers of increased enforcement, because that is something of a contrast with what some of his Liberal Democrat predecessors have said. They expressed concerns about human rights in respect of previously existing enforcement powers.
	We have also had five very thoughtful speeches from Back-Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) welcomed the Bill and he spoke extremely forcefully and effectively and from great knowledge of the mesothelioma clauses in the Bill, and I pay tribute to his work and the campaign that he has mounted on the issue, which is in part why the Government are having to respond and make these welcome changes in respect of sufferers from that terrible disease.
	I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) welcomed the improvements. He rightly acknowledged that there are still too many failures in the existing system from which many of our constituents are suffering. He welcomed the income disregards and the greater emphasis that will be placed on private arrangements. I appreciate his comments.
	We heard a thoughtful contribution from my neighbour, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), who wanted more voluntary agreements and rightly pointed out that at the same time we have to safeguard children's interests. He said that separating parents need advice and supportas he knows, we are taking measures in the Bill to ensure that that happensand rightly observed that that advice and support needs to be held at arm's length from the state. He will see, as these services evolve, that that is very much in accordance with our thinking.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the apparent difference between our approach to orders in respect of passports and to those in respect of driving licences, and suggested that there was an inconsistency. In fact, there are good reasons for doing it in different ways. Removing a driving licence, which we already have powers to do via the courts, has a direct impact on the livelihood of the person concerned, potentially on their employment and certainly on their mobility. Those significant consequences, bearing heavily on day-to-day life, make it legitimate to seek that power through the courts. The removal of travel documents relates rather more to discretionary activitythe drive to go on holiday, for exampleand it is appropriate that such powers can be handled administratively.

Jeremy Wright: No doubt this is a matter to which we can return in Committee, but will the Minister at least accept at this stage that it is worth considering it again, given that for some individuals the ability to travel abroad is integral to their working lives as well as their recreation?

James Plaskitt: We have already given that matter careful consideration and I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman why the differences are there, but we can certainly discuss it again in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) also made a thoughtful speech and I appreciate his comments. He asked about the advice service in rural areas. That is an important point. We envisage that the advice service might be largely phone-based or available via internet sites, and therefore accessible from wherever. He mentioned constituents of his whose income fluctuates dramatically during the course of the year because of the nature of their employment in such an area. The assessments will now be based on annual income, so anyone will know what their assessment will be throughout the subsequent year and can plan and budget accordingly. That should smooth out the fluctuations in income that he described.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for his contribution. He rightly drew attention to the IT system. As I have tried to explain, we are already introducing phased releases of improvements to ensure that the IT platform that is in place by the time that the CMEC assumes its powers is up to the job. Or course, that is very important.
	The establishment of the new commission will mark a clear break with the past. Lessons from the systemic failures of the CSA have been learned and applied. The Bill introduces a radical new approach to delivering child maintenance that is based on three core values. First, it is integral to our ambition to eradicate child poverty and central to our support for families. Secondly, it enshrines a clear set of rights and responsibilitiesthe right of parents to choose how best to support their children and responsibilities that make it clear that if people fail to fulfil their duties as parents they will be held to account. Thirdly, it creates a simpler, more transparent system to the advantage of parents and of our hard-working staff. The Bill represents a radical change in our approach to securing support for children when relationships between their parents have broken down. This reform is built centrally around the needs of children, but it also approaches the adults involved, supporting those who are trying to do the right thing by their children but pursuing with relentless determination those who would try to evade their responsibilities. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CHILD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PAYMENTS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill:
	 Committal 
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee 
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 16th October 2007.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading 
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings 
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. [ Mr. Watts .]
	 Question agreed to.

CHILD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PAYMENTS BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80A(1) (Carry-over of bills),
	That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.  [ Mr. Watts .]
	 Question agreed to.

CHILD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PAYMENTS BILL [ MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or a government department in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
	(2) the extinguishing in consequence of the Act of liabilities owed to the Crown under the Child Support Act 1991. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

CHILD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PAYMENTS BILL [ WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the charging of fees by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Health Bill [ Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 16th April and 18th June 2007 (Mental Health Bill [ Lords] (Programme) and Mental Health Bill [ Lords] (Programme) (No. 2))
	 Consideration of Lords Message 
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords]

Lords message considered.

Clause 10
	  
	The fundamental principles

Lords amendment: No. 1A.

Ivan Lewis: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4A, 32A, 32B, 41A, 41B, 41C and 41D.

Ivan Lewis: Before speaking about the substance of the amendments, I would like to say a brief word about the Bill generally. As all hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who was formerly Minister of State for Health, has until now represented the Government on the Bill. I pay tribute to the magnificent way in which she secured advances, which will, over time be acknowledged as historic and in the best interests of people with mental health problems. I am sorry that she has not had the pleasure of seeing the Bill through to the end, but I am pleased to have the honour of speaking about the amendments today. I also pay tribute to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who did a tremendous job in piloting the Bill through the other place.
	I am also pleased to assume lead responsibility for mental health in the Department and I look forward to working with all stakeholders. Whenever possible, I shall try to build a consensus that tackles the stigma that people with mental health problems and their families experience all too frequently.
	There is no doubt that the Bill has been contentious from the time when work began on it in 1998, and throughout its passage. There is also no doubt that the Bill has benefited from vigorous debate. We may not always agree about the exact nature of the provisions, but the debate has enabled us all to understand the wide range of perspectives on the important issues that the Bill covers, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central explained fully the reasons why the Government could not agree to some of the amendments that were tabled.
	The Government have however agreed to many amendments. To name but a few, they include: requirements around age-appropriate services for under 18s; making explicit the purpose of medical treatment for mental disorder; the introduction of statutory advocacy; including on the face of the Bill a list of issues that must be addressed in a statement of principles in the codes of practice; making it explicit that the conditions for supervised community treatment must be linked to a person's treatment or the need to protect them or others from harm; new safeguards for the use of electroconvulsive therapy, and new safeguards for those who are deprived of their liberty in their own best interests but who do not have Mental Health Act 1983 safeguards.
	On Monday, the other place considered the Commons amendments to the Bill and agreed several further amendments which, in the Government's view, represent a sensible way ahead on the outstanding issues, and I have no hesitation in commending them to the House.
	First, let me deal with the proposed list of new exclusions to the definition of mental disorder that were agreed in the other place but rejected by this House. The reasons for their rejection have been fully debated, and I will not go through them again. Although we could not agree to the proposed new exclusions, the Government fully understood the concern expressed by many to ensure that mental health legislation should never be used to exercise social control, and that reassurance needed to be given to peopleespecially those in certain black and minority ethnic communitieswho fear that the measure may be misused to their detriment, or to the detriment of their families and communities.
	That is why the Government were pleased to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barker, which added respect for diversity to the matters to be addressed in the statement of principles. Respect for diversity is already covered in the draft illustrative code for England, but following wide-ranging debates in both Houses, we intend to look again at the draft and seek ideas on how to improve it. The codes for both England and Wales will, of course, be subject to formal consultation. We believe that it would be helpful to have built into the amended legislation respect for diversity, which should be included, as I said, in the list of issues to be addressed in the statement of principles.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that embodying this issue in the principles, albeit within the structure proposed in the Bill, is very important? In an extreme casethough I do not anticipate oneof a frankly delinquent public authority, those matters could at least be taken to judicial review on grounds of non-compliance with the essential principle. In our view, securing compliance is extremely important.

Ivan Lewis: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a constructive and sensible point. There are concerns among black and ethnic minority communities about the disproportionate numbers within them who for one reason or another receive mental health services, and I believe that it is important to be sensitive to such concerns. This is probably the best way to achieve the outcomes that I suspect are shared on both sides of the House.
	I would like to deal now with doctor involvement in key decisions and the modernisation of professional roles. The House reversed the Lords amendments that would have allowed the responsible clinician's decision to be overridden by a doctor who may not even be involved in the patient's care. That would have undermined the new ways of working initiative and would have stood in the way of efforts to ensure that professional skills are recognised and focused where they are needed, to the benefit of patients and an efficient work force.
	The Government have always said that the decision to renew a patient's detention should involve the multidisciplinary team of professionals concerned with the patient's care. The legislation already requires that, before furnishing a renewal report, a patient's responsible clinician has to consult at least one other person on the multidisciplinary team. On Monday, the noble Baroness Murphy laid an amendment whereby the responsible clinician has to secure the agreement of a person who must be of a different profession from his own. That provision would apply to all responsible clinicians of whatever professional background.
	We considered that amendment carefully and we believe that this approach provides a sensible solution. The approach is compatible with multidisciplinary assessment and has the renewal decision made by professionals who actually know the patient. It is for the responsible clinician to decide whether their patient's detention should be renewed, but it is not unreasonable to expect that they have formal support from at least one other member of the multidisciplinary team.
	Let me deal now with the Lords amendments on supervised community treatment. The introduction of SCT is one of the most important features of the Bill. It is about allowing people with serious mental health problems to be cared for in the community when appropriate by having the right systems in place to help to avoid deterioration in their condition and thereby to protect them and others from harm.
	Both here and in the other place, SCT has been a source of heated and considerable debate. While we agree that there must be safeguards to ensure that people are not inappropriately put or kept on SCT, we are clear that the criteria must not be so restrictive that people who might benefit from its use are denied it. In particular, we could not accept the requirement that a patient should be ill enough to require two detentions prior to its use, because SCT might well help to prevent from relapse some patients who have been detained only once. We cannot accept a situation whereby clinicians and families have to stand by and watch a patient discharged from hospital relapse before SCT becomes an option for them. Delays in treatment inevitably worsen prognosis in the longer term.
	The Government are happy, however, to accept the Lords amendments that make clear the factors that clinicians should consider when making a community treatment order. The responsible clinician, in assessing the appropriateness or otherwise of SCT, must consider the risk of deterioration and, in so doing, must reflect on the patient's history.
	It has been a long road to this stage of the Bill, and I should like to pay tribute to everyone who has made it all possible. I should also like to make it clear that we have much work ahead to ensure that we get the secondary legislation, codes of practice and implementation right. We want to work with all interested stakeholders in a genuinely authentic partnership. In spite of past disagreements, we have the same aim as those who have debated every step of the legislation with us: the timely and effective treatment of all who need that treatment. To realise that goal, we need to work together in the interests of patients, their families and carers, the professionals involved and the entire community.

Tim Loughton: Well, here we are again, and I hope that this will be the last time. I welcome the Minister to his new mental health brief. He is the last man standing in the Department of Health Front-Bench team, and he has joined one of the most challenging pieces of legislation ever to go through his Department at the very last corner. He has done well on his timing there. I should also like to pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who was with the Bill almost as long as I have been with it, and to my colleague in the House of Lords, the noble Earl Howe, who has an equally longstanding association with the Bill and with the whole issue of mental health.
	The fact that we are considering amendments that were agreed by all sides in the Lords shows that the Opposition were right to say on Second Reading and on Report that although a lot of progress had been madewe welcomed the amendments that the Government agreed to on youth-appropriate treatment, the treatability test and advocacythere was a little further to go. The Lords have demonstrated that there were further concessions to be wrung out of the Government, so we were right not to give the Bill our full endorsement at that stage. We can now scrutinise these further amendments. This has been a worthwhile, if elongated, exercise over what now amounts to about eight years.
	We still have doubts as to whether the amendments to which the Government have agreed go far enough. We would like to have seen the impaired decision making amendments that were placed in the Bill in the Lords retained. To quote my noble Friend, Earl Howe:
	To have acknowledged in law that there is a place for the wishes and feelings of patients who are capable of making their own choices would have been a profoundly far-sighted and beneficial change.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2004; Vol. 693, c. 826.]
	I welcome the Minister's opening comment that one of his missions in his new brief was to root out stigma, but we believe that the provisions on impaired decision making might have played an important part in achieving that.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an essential and important principle that we should not discriminate, that we should treat people fairly, and that we should not impose conditions on them unless there is a manifest need to do so? That has been the principle behind mental health legislation as our culture and knowledge have evolved over more than a century. We have made some progress in taking this forward, but perhaps not quite enough.

Tim Loughton: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Those who want to see mental health being dealt with on a level playing field alongside any other physical health matters think that the Bill could have gone further towards achieving that. Before you rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, that brings me to the first of the amendments and the issue of exclusionsI hope that I got away with that one.
	We have had a long-running debate on the exclusions that we think should be added to the Bill. The matters that particularly exercised us, and the Lords, related to religious, cultural and political beliefs. The amendment that was proposed in the upper House by Baroness Barker mentions
	respect for diversity generally including, in particular, diversity of religion, culture and sexual orientation (within the meaning of section 35 of the Equality Act 2006).
	It is useful that that reference has now been placed in the Bill, because we do not have principles set out in the Bill, which we believe to be a weakness.
	We challenge the Government over whether exclusions could be incorporated in the Bill, as they were in the 1983 Act. Indeed, exclusions stronger and more precise than those now being proposed have worked perfectly well in New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand and, most recently, Scotland and have not, as the Minister's predecessor warned, been the subject of legal challenges. Exclusions in the 1983 Act have been subject to only four legal challenges. We therefore believe that further tightening of exclusions would be a correct and appropriate counterbalance to the Bill's widening of the definitions of mental illness and its absence of principles.
	Concern remains most markedly about the impact on the black and minority ethnic community. The most recent submissions of the Commission for Racial Equality challenge the Government's race equality impact assessment, describing it as
	at best flawed and at worst highly misleading. The Race Equality Impact Assessment cannot be taken as an accurate indication that the provisions of the Bill will not adversely impact on particular ethnic groups when the legislation is implemented.
	Given the apparent absence of rigorous internal consideration of the impact of the proposals prior to the introduction of race equality impact assessments, it would be useful if the Minister said how the Government are monitoring the impact of the Bill's watered-down exclusions on the BME community. There is no need to repeat the figures: we are all aware of the disproportionate number of members of the BME community, especially black African men, who are sectioned and subject to restraint and powerful drugs in hospital. I should be grateful if the Minister gave some undertakings on that.

Tim Boswell: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the possibility of community treatment orders being applied disproportionately to certain groups in society, rather than being applied evenly?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall deal with that in a minute. The BME community, and certain parts of it, seem to be affected disproportionately by the Bill's provisions on compulsory treatment, so we need more research to understand that and see how it can be overcome.
	We believe that the criteria for renewing a sectioning order should be no less rigorous than the Bill's criteria on the initial issuing of an orderit is as important for a patient as the initial detention. We therefore welcome the amendments proposing that two clinicians be involved in a patient's treatment. We are still concerned, however, about the medical expertise of the professionals issuing renewals notices. As we said in Committee and on Report, we do not want to introduce some form of hierarchy, but we do not understand why the Government have introduced inconsistencies between the original section and the renewal, and the renewal and the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Those inconsistencies could give rise to future problems.
	We have another concern about these amendments. Which of the professionals now tasked with providing the renewal order do the Government envisage will give the objective medical expertise on mental disorder that has been determined by the European Court of Human Rights? The Minister will know that we have serious qualms about how the legislation as previously framed, and even as amended by the Lords amendments, will fare under ECHR legislation.
	We are also concerned about the fact that the primary professional now responsible could get his or her colleague in the multidisciplinary team simply to rubber-stamp the decision on a renewal of detention. We need to ensure that the second person reaches a separate and independent decision. I would like some further clarification, and guarantees from the Minister that that is what the Government envisage. Without that, the role of the second professional, and the assurances provided by having a second professional as part of the process, are rather worthless. There must be a proper, independent and rigorous check.
	I turn to community treatment orders and the amendments tabled in the name of Lord Patel of Bradford in another place, which are supported by my colleague the noble Lord Howe and Cross Benchers and Liberal Democrats. We welcome the changes that were made on Report to CTOs. We have never been against the principle of CTOs, but because they are very powerful devices, we want them to be applied to a closely defined group of personsreal revolving-door patientsin closely defined circumstances as laid down by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, of which I was a member.
	We were therefore particularly keen on and welcomed the change to proposed new section 17 B (3)(e), which the Minister will have at the tip of his tongue. It added a very coercive measure to the exercise of CTOs:
	a condition that the patient abstain from particular conduct.
	That gave rise to CTOs being dubbed psychiatric ASBOs. The Government dropped that, which was welcome. The new condition is that CTOs must relate to what is necessary for beneficial medical treatment, but what constitutes medical treatment is still a broad definition within the Bill. It is also a shame that an end-date was not set on CTOs. Why does the Minister still not think that appropriate? We should consider the lobster-pot scenario that Professor Genevra Richardson described many years ago in her expert committee. We can easily see how people can now be subject to CTOs and other parts of sectioning. It is difficult to see how they can get out of that system, which is why we propose a three-year cap on the operation of the initial CTOs, and a right of appeal against the conditions attached to them.
	If a CTO involves giving treatment that is harmful to a patientfor example, a drug that has severe side-effects on that patient, and which he would prefer not to takein whose interests are we actually acting? I should be grateful if the Minister commented on that. In the debate in the Lords on Monday, his colleague Lord Hunt acknowledged
	concerns that supervised community treatment could be used too readily and that it could be used as a failsafe option without true justification.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 843.]
	Lord Patel went on to say that CTOs could even become part of the normal discharge process that detains patients generally, as a kind of safety net for risk-averse mental health service staff and managers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, that might apply disproportionately to members of the black and minority ethnic community. The early experience in Scotland has certainly been that a much larger number of people have been put on CTOs than was originally envisaged. Of course, that also has great resourcing implications. A lot of finances will have to go into resourcing CTOs, which will surely be to the disbenefit of other parts of the mental health service. I would like some guarantees that, under the amendments, the Minister does not think that CTOs will gobble up a disproportionate part of the resources, causing problems elsewhere.
	The Government originally introduced CTOs to deal with revolving-door patients, and we would like further clarification as to how the amendments apply to such patients, because there is some woolly terminology. The amendment refers to having to take account not only of the patient's history of mental disorder, but of any other relevant factors. What does that mean? What situations will be considered? For example, if a person had been a voluntary patient, as well as being under compulsion, would that be considered? What exactly in the patient's history of mental illness are the Government going to take into account under the amendment? We, and the Government, support the amendment, but it is not nearly as detailed and specific, or as prescriptive, as the amendments that the Lords put into the Bill, which the Government took out and we tried to restore on Report.
	If the purpose of CTOs, even with the amendment, is no more than to get a patient to take his medication, we are saying that medication should be forced on a patient even if it is doing him no good and even if it may lead to harm. That brings into question the whole attitude of Ministers: that CTOs have to be with the agreement of the patient. If the patients are agreeing to treatment, why do we need compulsory treatment orders in the first place? That is a clear anomaly. I would like some assurance that the code of practice, perhaps, will be clear as to the ultimate purpose of a CTO and that compulsory medication should not be used as a substitute for adequate mental health care in the community. We need some assurance that the code of practice will work as it relates to the amendments.
	Finally, we welcome the progress that has been made with the amendments, but we still do not think that they have gone far enough. This is a great missed opportunity in many respects to have a Bill that could serious challenge the problem of stigma. In the not too distant future, when we are in government and in a position to look at mental health legislation, we will want to review some of the provisions of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to review some of these radical and innovativebut unproven and untriedmeasures, particularly regarding CTOs and the impact they are having on the BME community and some of our most vulnerable patients. If he does not review it, we certainly will want to and we shall monitor this legislation closely. We want to be sure that, after eight years in gestation, the Bill works for the benefit of vulnerable people.

John Pugh: In considering the passage of this BillLords, Commons, Commons, LordsI am reminded of the nice cop, nasty cop routine. Their lordships savaged the Bill menacingly, and this House sought collectively to cajole the Government to mend their ways. In part, I think they did. Genuinely, it has not been a bad double act. The Bill has been improved, although not to universal satisfaction. I have referred to the remarks made by Baroness Murphy and Lord Alderdice in the Lords, which were full of dark foreboding, largely about the use to which psychiatrists might put the Bill. I have suggested that the Bill could be called the Mental Health (Fear of Psychiatrists) Bill.
	With that in mind, we would do well to accept the Lords amendments, particularly relating to the powers of the responsible clinicians, the exceptions and the additional conditions on CTOs. With regard to the exceptions, I pointed out on Report that it was restrictive, as the Government have said, but innocuous, judging by international comparisons and the way the law pans out elsewhere. However, it also sends out powerful signals about cultural, religious and social sensitivity. Some of the same effect could also be achieved, if people wished, by a statement of principles.
	Baroness Barker's excellent amendment produces a kind of cross between those two solutions. It was Lord Hunt who called the attempt declaratory, and declaration has a place in legislation. It is a good amendment and sends important signals.
	Lord Patel's amendments are more genuinely substantive and equally welcome. The residual question is whether enough has been done to allay the fears of Lord Patel, Lord Alderdice and Baroness Murphy, which were expressed by Lord Patel when he asked how we can be assured that this legislation will not massively increase the legal coercion of psychiatric patients. When the Government have been pressed on the question of whether more people will be under coercion as a result of this legislation, they have been shy of saying that no more people will be affected.
	Our question now is whether we should do more, without going so far as to frustrate the objectives of the Act. I do not know whether we can, or whether, if we are tempted to do that, we could deliver it politically. The legislation has been improved by forensic criticism on one side, and by a listening Minister. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who as a Health Minister played a conspicuous part in seeing this legislation through.
	It would have been good if the other place, notwithstanding their disappointments and amid their lordly back-slapping, had recognised that the House of Commons has played some part in making progress on this legislation. For example, Baroness Barker said:
	Some of the debates in another place were disappointing in that they were conducted by people who had clearly forgotten some of the many abuses in the mental health services in this country, where there are still people who were subjected in the past to wrongful application of compulsory mental health treatment. I meet some of them in the course of my work...although they are now very old.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 816.]
	I do not think that she was talking about events since the 1983 Act orI hopeabout events consequent on its amendment here. Only time and a serious reviewwhich we badly needwill tell. It seems to me that though the business today will be concluded, it is, as the Minister has implied, far from finished.

Tim Boswell: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I commend the amendments to the House, although I do so without total and unqualified approval. It would be churlish to fail to acknowledge my delight that the Minister has come among us to discuss this important subject. He has been very involved in health matters, and only 24 hours ago he and I were in the same room together discussing them. He will bring a sensitive touch to the issue, by which I mean no disrespect to his colleague who carried the brunt of the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
	I wish briefly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his huge contribution and to those professionals from the Mental Health Alliance and other organisations who briefed those of us who do not claim to be experts on this issue. We should not be cynical about legislation, because we have made some genuine progress here. The issue is whether we have made enough progress.
	I come to the Bill not as an expert in mental health issuesalthough I have a real interest in thembut because of my general interest in some of the issues of rights it involves. Indeed, through a member of my family, this is something of a family trade, and I was also involved in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the development of such concepts. One tries to test them, but my judgment is that, as my hon. Friend implied, with this legislation we have squeezed the lemon as far as we can. There may be another lemon to squeeze before long, when my hon. Friend is the Minister, butremembering the treaty of Versaillesthere may be some gloves to leave on the table in the way of concerns about the human rights implications of the Bill.
	Those are, first, in terms of the best interests of the individual, to use a phrase from the Mental Capacity Act, and concerns about whether that principle has always been enacted, especially when an individual does not have impaired decision making and is, in effect, being subjected to compulsory treatment against their will. I still have some major concerns about that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
	Equally, or even more importantly, the Committee expressed real concern about the differential impact on black and minority ethnic communities. That has to be tackled; whatever the legislation says, it is not acceptable in practice. The Minister's commitment to a diversity amendment is helpful in that regard, and deserves to be singled out.
	We are now at the small-print stage of our scrutiny. That is quite proper, as I believe that legislation should be considered in detail, but we must not overlook the big picture. Legislation is part of that, but it is also about delivering services effectively. No single amendment at this stage would make a huge difference in that respect. All of us who were involved in the Committee know that mental health provision in this country remains poor. It is still a Cinderella service: I must choose my words carefully but, at least in relation to other priorities, it is inadequately resourced. We need to give it a better emphasis, which means that we must establish the right sort of legal regime.
	Gradually, we have edged our way to a structure that does not challenge the rights of the individual in most cases. We have softened some of the Bill's rough edges, and although it has taken eight years, the process has been worth while. We can let the Bill go forward, in the belief that it will be enacted and implemented in the most sensitive way possible. No longer will we be able to make assumptions about people who are mentally ill, let alone give the impression that we are consigning them to a lifelong sentence of compulsory control and stigma.

James Duddridge: I begin by echoing the welcome extended to the Minister, who I am sure will lead us through the final breaths of the Bill as ably as the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is now Minister of State at the Department for Transport, did in its earlier stages.
	The Minister said that it had been a long journey to get this far with the Bill, and it certainly has been. I only joined when I became a Member of Parliament two years ago, and the many constituency cases that I encountered sparked my interest in mental health matters. However, if the road has been long, our route has not been direct and the vehicle that we have used has not been the most efficient. We did not ride in the Government's Toyota Prius, with all its economy and value; instead, we have taken an old banger to move from left to right. Yet we are where we are, and we have our Bill nevertheless.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that at certain points along the road, we appeared to have broken down altogether?

James Duddridge: That is true, but we managed to crank up the old car so that we could move forward again as we approached the end of the Bill's passage through the House.
	I welcome the Government's latest concessions, and I was especially pleased with earlier amendments on electro-convulsive therapy and age-appropriate treatment. It was with some sadness that I must relate that this is the only one of all the debates that we have had for which I did not receive a briefing from the Mental Health Alliance, which has otherwise given fantastic help throughout.
	I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabledand especially the one dealing with respect for diversityalthough they are weaker than I would have preferred. In addition, it makes an awful lot of sense that the amendment dealing with the renewal of detentions should specify two clinicians. I welcome those changes, and the strengthening of the power to recall patients in the community, although I have some caveats as to how that can be done.
	However, I retain some deep concerns about CTOs, and especially about the ones that, year in and year out, will not work. I would have preferred a three-year limit on such orders. I would also have preferred the Lords to include a Government amendment to provide an acceptable balance on impaired decision making.
	Unfortunately, I still feel that this is a bad Bill overall, but we have managed to make some progress in the end. I say that it is a bad Bill because people in my constituencyhealth service professionalsare still opposed to it for solid reasons. I believe that they are still confused by it in many ways, because of the peculiar processes involved in the old banger's long journey, which has finally come to The end.

Ivan Lewis: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to some of the points made during the debate. There have been some constructive contributions.
	It is difficult to respond to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but I pay tribute to him for the way in which, I am told, he led for Her Majesty's Opposition during the deliberations on the Bill. I thank him for his congratulations on my new responsibilities, which I hold alongside my responsibilities for adult social care.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about monitoring the changes with specific regard to members of black and minority ethnic communities. I assure him that we shall be monitoring the measures, including their impact on people from those communities, extremely closely. However, the existing mental health, criminal justice and education systems raise massive issues for our society in terms of relative access to services, relative deprivation and underperformance, some of which have to do with ethnicity. The changes that we propose will do nothing to make that situation worse, and will indeed make it better, so it is slightly disingenuous to suggest that there are no diversity issues or problems for people from ethnic minority communities in the existing mental health system. We have to address such issues irrespective of the changes we are making in the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the respective professionals who would be able to make decisions. Amendment No. 4A requires the second signatory to the renewal report to have been
	professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment,
	so that person will actually know about the patient's conditiona point I made earlier. To give some further detail, the second signatory has to state
	in writing that he agrees that the conditions
	for renewal are met. They will not be able to do that unless they have examined the patient recently and are confident that they know the patient's current condition. We regard that as good professional practice. We shall make it clear in the code of practice that such a person should be suitably competent professionally to make the decision.

Tim Loughton: Can the Minister give some more detail about the meaning of suitably competent and provide some examples of the sort of practitioner he thinks will now be empowered to give that additional view about renewals?

Ivan Lewis: As I said, the code of practice will make that clear, but suitably competent means [ Interruption. ] This is important. The Conservatives talk constantly about devolution to the front line, trusting the professionals and professional responsibility, yet they want a definitive list of people who would be regarded by clinicians and senior managers at local level as suitable professionals. It is disingenuous to say that we should not prescribe such things from Westminster and Whitehall, while requiring an exhaustive list in the Bill.

Tim Loughton: This has nothing to do with localism and trusting professionals; it is about compliance with the European convention on human rights. Is the Minister saying that those professionals will not have to comply with the ECHR and that everything will be left to local direction? If so, he has grossly misread the legislation.

Ivan Lewis: No, I am not saying that at all. We have checked, and it has been confirmed that the situation is entirely compatible and consistent with the legislative framework. We are clear that we want a different way of working in all elements of the health service. We genuinely want a multi-disciplinary approach through which professionals from different backgrounds and with different expertise can make a contribution according to their knowledge, skills and qualifications. What I am talking about is a classic example of that.

Tim Boswell: Although I do not disagree at all with the excellent sentiment that the Minister has expressed, does he not appreciate that some Conservative Members, some of those in the other place and others in professional circles can see a distinction between wishing to assist a patientparticularly when there is a voluntary capacityand seeking to coerce a patient in the interests of the wider community? In the second case, there has to be a proper process that is carefully defined to meet human rights criteria.

Ivan Lewis: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should say that that balance has had to be struck in the mental health system every day of every week since time immemorial. We believe that the legislation has strengthened the approach to those difficult judgments that professionals have to make. Clearly, they have to make them within a robust legislative framework and according to best professional practice. We believe that the legislation strengthens that framework in that environment.
	The issue is not new; professionals make those agonising decisions daily, and 99 per cent. of the time they do an amazing job of getting those judgments right. In the tragic cases, of which we are all aware, the judgments are not always as we would want. However, in the vast majority of situations, specialist mental health professionals with expertise on such issues have to weigh up the considerations as an integral part of their professional practice. The legislation does not change that, but strengthens it. One of the challenges is to ensure that every professional working in mental health services should be properly trained about the implications of the Bill and how they will be expected to work.

Ann Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that professionals will be subject to disciplinary procedures should they fall below the standards expected of them? That, of course, is a safeguard for the patient.

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely. There are a number of issues about protecting and securing best practice: good leadership, good management, continual professional development and the legislative and professional regulatory frameworks. All those things contribute towards ensuring maximum professionalism at the front line of our mental health services. In time, this legislation will be seen to have added significantly to those professionals' ability to do the job as they would want.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also raised the question of revolving-door patients. As we have said in the past, attempting to define the clinical group in view, as the Lords amendments have attempted to do, is crude and arbitrary. It prevents supervised community treatment from being available to protect vulnerable patients, as well as other people in the community. SCT must be available to patients undergoing their first period of compulsory treatment, who may be at great risk if they are discharged into the community without the protection of SCT. The incredibly important point is that the first relapse in the community can often be the fatal one. It would be irresponsible to ignore what is clear from the evidence on making such decisions.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the criteria for SCT were too broad and would lead to there being too many people in the system. Actually, the criteria set a high threshold for placing a patient under a community treatment order or SCT: first, a patient must be detained for treatment in hospital; and secondly, the amendment now agreed in the other place makes clear the factors that a clinician must consider when placing a patient under SCT. They include the risk of a patient getting worse in the community. In assessing that risk, the clinician must consider the patient's history. Those are reasonably clear safeguards in terms of thresholds.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) usually makes measured contributions, and did so again in his brief speech today.  [ Interruption. ] We are not that inclusive. However, it is bizarre to suggest that Ministers should announce today the number of people who will end up on treatment orders, or that they should guess or guesstimate such a figure. This is all about best professional judgments in terms of the interests of people with mental health needs, their families, and the wider community. It would be ludicrous for the Government or the House to prescribe the number of people who will end up accessing the new form of treatment.

John Pugh: I did not suggest that the Minister should give us an exact number; I asked him whether there would be an increase or a decline, and whether it would be substantial. He can tell us that.

Ivan Lewis: The only thing I can say about increases and decreases is that, the way things are going at the moment, there is no question but that the hon. Gentleman's party will see a significant decrease in its representation in the House. I suspect that questions such as that simply reinforce the point. If I cannot be expected to define a specific figure, how can I be expected to say whether it will go up or down? I am afraid that is beyond me, and would be beyond any Member of the House.

Tim Loughton: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I alluded earlier to the experience in Scotlandalbeit at an early stagewhich is that the number of patients released under CTOs has been considerably higher than was anticipated. Does he envisage that that may be replicated in this country when the legislation comes in? If so, the word higher might be what he is looking for.

Ivan Lewis: I want the professionals to use the legislation that this place is passing to best effect, in the interests of patients, their families and the community. Assuming that that is the basis on which decisions are made, the outcome of those best judgments and professional decisions will be in the best interests of our country. That is straightforward and pretty simple. The hon. Gentleman may want to make petty political points to position himself, but that does not do justice to a debate as serious as this.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about limits on CTOs, and referred specifically to the concept of a three-year limit. There is a package of safeguards already in place to ensure that a patient does not stay on a CTO for any longer than is necessary. Once again, we do not agree that an arbitrary time limit is appropriate, because it simply has no clinical basis. An arbitrary time limit could mean patients no longer benefiting from a CTO when they need that treatment.

Tim Loughton: What is the package of safeguards that the Minister has just referred to?

Ivan Lewis: The safeguards will be included in the code of practice that we will publish in due course. They will be about assessment, ongoing review, and the right to appeal. The code of practice will clearly spell out people's entitlements and rights in terms of having the treatment order reviewed regularly. That will be about clinical judgment and the patient's health.

Ann Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are being extraordinary? They agree in principle to community treatment orders, because, like us, they believe that they are a good thing, enabling patients to have treatment in the community that they would otherwise have to be admitted to hospital to receive. The issue is whether community treatment orders are a good thing, and the Opposition agree that they are; otherwise they would continue to vote against them in the House. Predicting whether there will be an increase or a decrease is not the issue. The issue is whether they are going to be properly applied.

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Once we have put the legislative framework in place, accompanied by suitable regulation and protection, surely it is for professionals on the front line to make clinical judgments according to their professional expertise. The Conservative party argues, on every matter of public service and public policy, that we should devolve to professionals, allow maximum autonomy at the front line and not command and control from the centre. However, during this debate, Conservative Members have wanted Ministers to prescribe on the Floor of the House what professionals ought to do, which is entirely inappropriate.
	Many people have made a tremendous contribution to ensuring that the Bill will finally make its way on to the statute book, so I do not want the debate to conclude without paying tribute not only to the Ministers who have been referred to, the Opposition spokesmen and the Back Benchers who have made a contribution, such as the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but to the officials in the Department of Health who have navigated us through a difficult and tortuous process incredibly professionally. The Bill will be seen as a historic piece of legislation that not only reflects the best interests of people with mental health needs and their families, but ensures that the community can have confidence in a modern mental health system.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 4A, 32A, 32B, 41A, 41B, 41C and 41D agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM (STANDING ORDERS AND RELATED PROVISIONS)

Ordered,
	That the following repeals of Standing Orders, new Standing Orders, amendments to Standing Orders, and related provisions be made
	(A) Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order made
	 Consideration of draft legislative reform orders 
	18.(1) If the Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended under paragraphs (4) or (6) of Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) that a draft Order subject to the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure, laid before the House under Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, should be approved, and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall
	(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith; and
	(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.
	(2) If the committee has recommended under paragraphs (4) or (6) of Standing Order No. 141 that a draft Order subject to the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure be not approved, no motion to approve the draft Order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question on any motion thereafter made by a Minister of the Crown that the draft Order be approved shall be put forthwith.
	(3) If the committee has recommended under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 141 that a draft Order subject to the negative resolution procedure should not be made (and that the recommendation is not intended to operate section 16(4) of the Act), that recommendation shall be deemed to constitute notice of a motion under sub-paragraph (4)(a) of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees).
	(4) Motions under paragraphs (1) or (2) of this order may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
	(B) Standing Order No. 141 (Regulatory Reform Committee) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order made
	 Regulatory Reform Committee 
	141.(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Regulatory Reform Committee, to examine and report on
	(i) every draft Order laid before the House under sections 14 or 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 ('the Act');
	(ii) any Subordinate Provisions Order or draft of such an Order made or proposed to be made under sections 1 and 4 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (except those not made by a Minister of the Crown);
	(iii) any matter arising from its consideration of such Orders or draft Orders; and
	(iv) matters relating to regulatory reform.
	(2) In the case of every draft Order referred to in paragraph (1)(i) above the committee shall consider the Minister's recommendation under section 15(1) of the Act as to the procedure which should apply to it and shall report to the House any recommendation under the Act that a different procedure should apply.
	(3) In its consideration of draft Orders under Part 1 of the Act the committee shall include in each case, in addition to such other matters as it deems appropriate, whether provision in the draft Order
	(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
	(b) serves the purpose of removing or reducing a burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation (in respect of a draft Order under section 1 of the Act);
	(c) serves the purpose of securing that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with the regulatory principles, as set out in section 2(3) of the Act (in respect of a draft Order under section 2 of the Act);
	(d) secures a policy objective which could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means;
	(e) has an effect which is proportionate to the policy objective;
	(f) strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
	(g) does not remove any necessary protection;
	(h) does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
	(i) is not of constitutional significance;
	(j) makes the law more accessible or more easily understood (in the case of provisions restating enactments);
	(k) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
	(l) gives rise to an issue under such criteria for consideration of statutory instruments laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) as are relevant;
	(m) appears to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union:
	Provided that in the case of draft Orders under section 20 of the Act, those criteria which are not relevant to provisions made pursuant to section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 need not be taken into consideration in relation to those provisions.
	(4) In relation to every draft Order laid under section 14 of the Act subject to the negative or affirmative procedure under sections 16 or 17 of the Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft Order should be made (in the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter whether the recommendation was agreed without a division.
	(5) In relation to every draft Order laid under section 14 of the Act subject to the super-affirmative procedure under section 18 of the Act, the committee shall report its recommendation as to whether
	(a) the draft Order should be proceeded with unamended under section 18(3) of the Act; or
	(b) a revised draft Order should be laid under section 18(7) of the Act; or
	(c) no statement under section 18(3) or revised draft Order under section 18(7) should be laid.
	(6) In relation to every draft Order or revised draft Order subject to the super-affirmative procedure being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) of the Act, the committee shall report its recommendation whether the draft Order or revised draft Order should be approved, indicating in the case of draft Orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division; and in respect of such draft Orders or revised draft Orders the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (3) of this Order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.
	(7) It shall be an instruction to the committee considering draft Orders being proceeded with under section 18(3) or 18(7) that it report not more than fifteen sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(3)) or twenty-five sitting days (in the case of an order under section 18(7)) after the relevant statement is laid.
	(8) In relation to every draft Order or revised draft Order, the committee shall report any recommendation under section 16(4) of the Act that the draft Order be not made, or under sections 17(3), 18(5) or 18(9) of the Act that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft Order.
	(9) In its consideration of any Subordinate Provisions Order under paragraph (1)(ii) of this order, the committee shall in each case consider whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds laid down in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)); and if the committee is of the opinion that any such Order or draft Order should be annulled, or, as the case may be, should not be approved, they shall report that opinion to the House.
	(10) The committee shall consist of fourteen members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(11) The committee shall have power
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
	(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place.
	(12) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.
	(13) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined in relation to matters within paragraphs (1) (i) to (iii) and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being a member of the committee shall otherwise take
	part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum.
	(14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting on a draft Order it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department thinks fit, except to the extent that the committee considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so without risking the opportunity for effective exercise of a function conferred on it under section 15, 16, 17 or 18 of the Act.
	(C) Standing Orders No. 98 (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)), No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)), and No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) shall be amended by leaving out the words 'regulatory reform order' and inserting the words 'legislative reform order'; and Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) shall be amended by leaving out the words from 'under' in line 21 to 'and' in line 24 and inserting the words 'Part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001,'.
	(D) Any draft regulatory reform orders laid under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 which are currently before the House shall be considered by the Regulatory Reform Committee appointed under this Order and by the House as if they were draft orders, subject to the super-affirmative procedure, laid under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.
	(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), those Members of this House who were members of the Regulatory Reform Committee before the passing of this Order shall be the members of the Regulatory Reform Committee appointed under paragraph (B) above; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees), the Regulatory Reform Committee established under paragraph (B) shall be the same committee as that established before the passing of this Order. [Tony Cunningham.]

PETITION

Jobcentre Plus (Christchurch)

Christopher Chope: I wish to present a petition against the proposal to close the Christchurch office of Jobcentre Plus. The petition was signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 local people during the one month consultation period, which ends this week.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The humble petition of residents of Christchurch declares its opposition to the proposal by JobCentre Plus to close the office in Christchurch and to relocate the service to Bournemouth. The closure of this much valued locally accessible office which serves the people of Christchurch with dedication is unacceptable and will create unnecessary additional expense and inconvenience for some of the most vulnerable members of the local community.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Government to intervene to prevent the closure.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, c.
	Since the launch of the petition there is a new Prime Minister who is committed to change. The people of Christchurch certainly hope that he will change the policy on this issue.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Travellers (Facilities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Tony Cunningham.]

Jessica Morden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the Chamber a matter of great importance to my constituents. I am pleased that I am giving the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), his first opportunity to respond in his new role. I wish him well in carrying out his ministerial responsibilities. We worked closely together when he stood in the Hartlepool by-election. When we were tramping the streets of Hartlepool many years ago, little did I know that he would one day respond to my Adjournment debate. I am sure that his reply will be an early hallmark of a long and successful ministerial career.
	I applied for the debate on behalf of my constituents, businesses and Newport city council. They have contacted me about the consequences of unauthorised encampments set up by Gypsies and Travellers in my constituency. I appreciate that the issue is sensitive and I acknowledge and welcome the steps that the Government and the Welsh Assembly are taking to address some of the difficulties faced by Gypsies and Travellers. The Assembly obviously has some responsibility for such matters, but the law of trespass, which I will mention later, is the UK Government's responsibility.
	Newport has a particular problem with unauthorised encampments owing to its locationit is one of the gateways to Wales and it is on the M4 corridor. Over the past few years, the city of Newport has witnessed a wave of unauthorised camps being set up on significant community areas, including parks and school playing fields. There are problems to do with unauthorised encampments, and the cost of enforcement action and of clearing them up is unsustainable and locally very unpopular. It is estimated that about 18 million is spent each year on enforcement action in the UK.
	In the past year, there have been 16 encampments on sensitive sites in Newport. Three were on school playing fields, causing damage to the fields and putting them out of bounds to the children for a total of 20 days. Five were on the grounds of a stately home, Tredegar house, and that not only affected visitors but put events in jeopardyweddings, for example, were at risk of cancellation. Three were at Newport international sports village. They put the car park out of commission and thereby prevented the public from accessing the facilities. Three were in Coronation park, which is one of the main venues for community sport in my constituency. That put in jeopardy a major youth soccer tournament, which was attended by about 3,000 people and organised by volunteers from the Newport Corinthians football club. Caravans were parked on football pitches, causing damage and giving rise to major clear-up costs. The remaining two encampments were on other parks in the city.
	Costs and the time needed to return facilities to good use were particularly critical in the case of the occupation of the school playing fields and Coronation park. In total, costs of over 10,000 were incurred in removing the rubbish and making the playing fields safe for schoolchildren to use again. I recognise that Gypsy and Traveller communities have their own legitimate needs and expectations and I support their right to live life as they choose. They have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Although many Gypsies and Travellers act responsibly, sadly, my constituents regularly bring me stories that show that that is often not the case. Neither the Travellers nor the settled community should be able to ignore each other's legitimate expectations or prevent their enjoyment of life. The settled community also has the right to access its community facilities. Settled communities have the right to run youth soccer games in city parks, schoolchildren have the right to play safely on their school field and the public have the right to access parks and sports facilities.
	Each year, unauthorised encampments continue to spring up. I appreciate that Newport does not have a permanent site. The Welsh Assembly Government have responded positively to the detailed report that they commissioned on the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in Wales and they are now working on a strategy that will have important implications for the provision of services in the long term, but in the meantime Newport works with neighbouring authorities in south Wales to provide alternative arrangements. The Assembly's commissioned report acknowledges that even in areas with existing Gypsy/Traveller sites, unauthorised encampments continue to be problematic. Its findings on the number of unauthorised encampments show that a significant number still occur, including in areas run by authorities that have official designated sites.
	The effect of unauthorised encampment is to worsen inter-community relations and cohesion. That in turn makes it difficult for the council to identify a site. The endless round of court notices and eviction enforcements means that everyone, from settled neighbours to Travellers and their families, become exasperated, and council officials and the local police are often caught in the middle of difficult situations. The result is that the public's experience makes them fearful of the consequences of having a site in their area.
	For the council and the police, the current legislation on trespass encourages tensions. Some argue that they would like the laws of trespass changed to bring us into line with the Republic of Ireland, where there are stronger powers to enable the police to deal with trespass. Will the Minister look at the experience in Ireland to see whether there are lessons that we could learn, and may we consider how the law works there? Residents who have experienced the after-effects of an unauthorised encampment often ask whether, at the very least, certain sites could be designated as sensitive. By that, they mean school playing fields, parks, school grounds and sports facilities. That way, people in the settled community can continue to live their lives.
	I want to stress that there is good co-operation between Newport City council and Gwent police, who take their duty of care very seriously. The two work in partnership to ensure the best outcome for both sets of communities. They seek to engage positively with Travellers and, in consultation with them, to agree the expected standards, including site cleanliness and timetables for departure. They work hard to provide amenities and carry out the appropriate welfare checks. They try to act quickly when sensitive sites are involved. However, no matter how hard they try, on occasions it is not possible to gain movement without an expensive and time-consuming process. In the meantime, school playing fields, parks and other community facilities are put out of use.
	The suggestion therefore is that on designated sites we impose stricter control and a trespass law, which would mean that occupation of those sites could be regarded as a criminal rather than a civil act. Failure to leave the site immediately would result in swift action and, most importantly, the threat of action could serve as a deterrent to unauthorised encampment in the future. The designation of sensitive sites could be agreed by local authorities and the relevant police forces together, and the areas could be published and subject to challenge through the courts on grounds of reasonableness. That could provide a better balance of rights and responsibilities and could give both communities greater clarity as to what is and what is not acceptable.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that on both sides of Newport, although there is sympathy with the Travellers and their difficulties, the behaviour that has occurred recently in Newport is found to be intolerable by many local people, particularly the dumping of huge quantities of rubbish on the sites after the Travellers move away?

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He, like me, no doubt meets many constituents who make those points to us at surgeries.
	The Welsh Assembly study that is taking place will provide a clear evidence base and a starting point for local authorities to make an assessment of local provision in Wales. Across the UK there is a requirement to assess need, and in England there is now financial assistance for sites. However, local authorities need the resources to provide sites and assistance in maintaining them, and communities need to see benefits and be reassured that the provision of a site will help to prevent, rather than increase, difficulties. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please look at the possibility of creating incentives for local communities that agree to sites in their localities?
	In conclusion, I hope we can find a balance of responsibilities that creates an environment that supports Gypsies and Travellers as well as the settled community, upholds the rights of both and preserves community facilities for their usual purpose.

Iain Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) on securing a debate on such an important topic to her and her constituents. I pay tribute to the dignified, reasoned and eloquent way in which she conveyed her argument. She mentioned the Hartlepool by-election. She was one of the first people who came to help me in that by-electionhelp me get to this placeand I cannot think of anybody else to whom I would rather respond on my first run-out at the Dispatch Box.
	My officials have told me that my hon. Friend has worked assiduously on behalf of her constituents on this issue, and I hope her constituents and agencies in Newport recognise what such a strong and valuable constituency MP my hon. Friend is. As she pointed out, responsibility for Gypsy and Traveller issues is devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government, so although I can provide information on the position in Wales where it differs from that in England, she will appreciate that I am not able to comment directly on the Assembly's behalf.
	My hon. Friend highlighted in a powerful way some of the problems that can be created by unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller sites and the tensions that they cause with the settled community. At the root of those problems is the shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers, which is forcing them on to unauthorised sites. The Government believe that everyoneI stress everyone in the community should have the opportunity of a decent place to live. There is currently no such opportunity for households in about 20 per cent. of Gypsy and Traveller caravans across England and Wales. That is unacceptable and we are committed to increasing the number of authorised, good quality sites in the same way as we are committed to increasing the supply and quality of conventional affordable and social housing. Increased site provision, coupled with effective use of enforcement powers against unauthorised sites, and a joined-up approach between the various organisations with a role in Gypsy and Traveller and broader housing issues, is vital to addressing the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted and helping to create strong, cohesive communities.
	Although we do not need a large amount of land to address the shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers, it can be particularly challenging to deliver specific land for sites. Many people do not want sites built near to them. They have fears about them that are based on rumour, conjecture and misinformation. A MORI poll in 2003 found that a third of those surveyed felt personally prejudiced against Gypsies and Travellers. It is a prejudice that it is still widely regarded as acceptable to express in a way that would be considered offensive against any other group. But it is a prejudice that is groundless, and I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some common myths. Research undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation investigated the experiences of neighbours who had objected to the establishment of three authorised sites, after the sites had been up and running for between one and four years. Most householders acknowledged that their fears had proved groundless. The police reported no noticeable increase in crime in the vicinity of the sites. Schools in those areas were able to cope with the additional pupils from the sites and reported that the Gypsy and Traveller children had integrated well socially.
	Gypsies and Travellers are required toand dopay council tax, whether or not their sites have planning permission, and they are active in their local communities. For example, Candy Sheridan, an Irish Traveller, is a councillor for North Norfolk district council. Blue Jones, a Romany Gypsy, represents Kent on the National Youth Parliament. Kedra Goodall, a Gypsy, recently sought selection as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith and got through to the final four.
	Well managed, good quality sites can support cohesive, sustainable communities. The Ridgewell site near Halstead in Essex is just one example. The site is well integrated with the local community, with residents, members of the local neighbourhood watch scheme and patrons of the mobile library service, which regularly visits the site. So there are incentives for everyoneGypsies and Travellers, local authorities and the settled communityto increasing site provision. Those extend beyond the obvious benefits of reducing unauthorised camping and the tensions that that can create with the settled community, of which my hon. Friend has spoken so eloquently.
	Site provision will reduce the amount of resources that authorities spend on costly enforcement action. As my hon. Friend mentioned, this has been estimated by the Commission for Racial Equality at 18 million a year, and described by the Audit Commission in relation to one local authority as a wasteful use of resources. Bristol city council has seen its enforcement costs drop from 200,000 to 5,000 a year since building a new authorised site. One result of that saving has been that its leisure services department has been able to spend an additional 40,000 a year improving the environment through investment in local parks and open spaces. I am sure that that approach is relevant and pertinent to my hon. Friend's experience, and I hope that she will take it up and begin to implement it in her constituency.
	The provision of authorised sites also makes it quicker and easier to take enforcement action where unauthorised camping does take place. A range of powers are available to landowners, local authorities and the police to deal with unauthorised encampments, where Gypsies and Travellers camp on land that they do not own. Those range from common law powers and civil procedures in the county court, to the powers of local authorities and the police to direct trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances.
	My hon. Friend asked me to look at the experience in Ireland, where stronger powers are available to deal with trespass, and to consider making trespass a criminal offence where it occurs on certain sensitive sites. Although trespass itself is not a criminal offence, it is already a criminal offence for a trespasser to fail to leave when directed to do so by a local authority or the police, or to return within three months. Our task group on site provision and enforcement, chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, a former chief executive of the Local Government Association, has reviewed the operation of enforcement powers and taken evidence from local authorities and others. The group concluded that rather than making changes to those powers, authorities should be helped to use them more effectively. It recommended that we work closely with the Local Government Association and the Improvement and Development Agency to secure improvements in performance, and we will do so.
	Police powers to direct trespassers to leave land will often be the quickest, as they can be used without reference to the courts. However, there are other things that authorities and the police can do to speed up the process, including having protocols in place to deal with cases of unauthorised sites. However, as the interim report of our task group makes clear, and as I have already stressed, enforcement action will always be quicker and more effective where appropriate authorised sites are available. We recognise that until sufficient numbers of authorised sites are available, local authorities, Gypsies and Travellers can be left in a difficult position. Authorities may want to consider whether enforcement action is absolutely necessary. Where an unauthorised encampment is in an obtrusive location, authorities could seek to agree a departure date with the campers. However, as in the instances described by my hon. Friend, there will be some locations where encampments are not acceptablefor example, where they prevent the use of important local amenities such as sports fields or stately homes for weddings. In those instances, authorities could seek to agree a less damaging location.
	Having enough good quality accommodation will help to tackle the serious social exclusion experienced by Gypsies and Travellers and improve health and education outcomes. The average life expectancy of a Gypsy or Traveller is 10 to 12 years less than that of a member of the settled community. Gypsy and Traveller mothers are almost 20 times more likely to experience the death of a child. Twenty-two per cent. of Irish Traveller children and 15 per cent. of Gypsy children achieve five or more good GCSE grades, compared with 55 per cent. of children in the settled population.
	In order to achieve the increase in accommodation we are seeking we have established a new framework for authorised site provision. Local authorities in England and Wales are required by the Housing Act 2004 to undertake accommodation needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers in the same way as they do for the rest of the community. I understand that assessments have been completed, or are now under way, in 90 per cent. of authorities in England. We want all those to be complete by the end of the year. In England, regional assemblies will take a strategic view of need and set out the number of pitches that each local authority will be expected to deliver. Local authorities will then need to identify sites to deliver those pitches in their development plan documents. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a Welsh MP, will be interested to hear that in Wales the National Assembly has consulted on planning guidance that would require local authorities whose accommodation assessments have identified unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in their areas to identify sites to meet that need in their local development plans.
	To back up that new framework, we have increased the resources available to local authorities for Gypsy and Traveller sites. In England, up to 56 million is available between 2006 and 2008 for providing new sites and refurbishing existing sites through the Gypsy and Traveller site grant. In Wales, 3 million is being made available between 2007-08 and 2009-10 to refurbish existing sites. We are beginning to make progress, but we need to step up the pace. We will work with local authorities and regional assemblies to provide challenge and support as they tackle this important issue.
	The new framework that we have established is crucial to making progress on site provision, and coupled with effective enforcement action and a joined up approach to the issues, it will help create strong, cohesive communities. Only by significantly increasing the number of authorised sites will we ensure that allI stress allparts of the community have a decent place to live. That will reduce the tensions that unauthorised sites can cause with the settled community, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, reduce the need for, and cost of, enforcement action, and make it easier to use enforcement powers as well as improving the life outcomes of the most socially excluded group in our society.
	I would like once again to congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and affording me the opportunity to explain why site provision is so important and how we need to see it in the wider context of affordable and appropriate accommodation for all.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Seven o'clock.

Deferred Division

European global navigation satellite system

That this House takes note of European Union document number 7828/07 and ADD1, Commission Communication, GALILEO at a cross-roadthe implementation of the European GNSS programmes; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on this document.
	 The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.